Sanhedrin 47
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״נִבְזֶה בְּעֵינָיו נִמְאָס״ – זֶה חִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, שֶׁגֵּירַר עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו עַל מִטָּה שֶׁל חֲבָלִים. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְחַיֵּי הוּא, מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what was taught with regard to the verse: “In his eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors them that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4). This is referring to Hezekiah, king of Judea, who dragged the bones of his father, Ahaz, on a bier made of ropes, and he did not bury Ahaz in a manner befitting a king in order to disgrace him for his sinful conduct. And if the eulogy and other funeral rites are meant to honor the living, what is the reason that he acted this way, in a manner that brought disgrace upon himself and all of the Jewish people?
כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה לַאֲבוּהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם כַּפָּרָה דַּאֲבוּהּ מְשַׁהוּ לֵיהּ לִיקָרָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל? יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוּפַיְיהוּ נִיחָא לְהוּ דְּמַחֲלִי יְקָרַיְיהוּ לְגַבֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Hezekiah did this so that his father would achieve atonement for his sins through his disgrace. The Gemara asks: Can it be that for his father’s atonement they would defer the honor of all of Israel, who would have been honored by a proper eulogy for their late king? The Gemara answers: It was satisfactory to the people of Israel themselves to forgo their honor for him in order that their former king achieve atonement for his sins.
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לָהֶן: אַל תִּסְפְּדוּנִי בָּעֲיָירוֹת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יְקָרָא דְחַיֵּי, מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? קָסָבַר: לִיתְיַיקְּרוּ בֵּיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל טְפֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Before he died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his disciples: Do not eulogize me in the small towns that you pass as you take my body out for burial, but eulogize me only in the larger cities. And if you say that a eulogy is delivered in honor of the living, what difference does it make to him if he is eulogized also in the smaller towns? The Gemara answers: He thought that the people of Israel would be more greatly honored through him if they gathered together for the eulogies in the larger cities.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו. מַאי לָאו לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת? לֹא, לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, e.g., in order to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night.” What, is it not referring to the honor of the deceased? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the honor of the living relatives of the deceased.
וּמִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי מֵבִית לֵיהּ לְמֵת? אִין, כִּי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ״, דּוּמְיָא דְּתָלוּי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בִּזָּיוֹן. אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ בִּזָּיוֹן – לָא.
The Gemara asks: But can it be that due to the honor of the living, they allow the deceased to remain unburied overnight? The Gemara answers: Yes, as when the Merciful One states: “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him that day” (Deuteronomy 21:23), it teaches that the prohibition applies only to cases similar to that of a person whose body is hung after his death, who suffers degradation when his corpse is left hanging overnight. But here, since the deceased does not suffer degradation when the funeral is delayed, as the delay is in order that the burial will be performed with greater dignity, there is no violation of the prohibition, and he may be left unburied overnight.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְשַׁמֵּעַ עָלָיו עֲיָירוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ מְקוֹנְנוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי, אֵין בּוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן לַמֵּת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, for example, in order to assemble the people from the neighboring towns for the funeral, or to bring him professional lamenters, or to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night,” as anyone who acts in such a manner does so only for the sake of honoring the dead. This indicates that the eulogy and other funeral rites are performed to honor the deceased. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who acts in such a manner for the sake of honoring the living does not transgress the prohibition, as there is no degradation of the dead.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: סִימָן יָפֶה לַמֵּת שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מֵת שֶׁלֹּא נִסְפַּד וְלֹא נִקְבַּר, אוֹ שֶׁחַיָּה גּוֹרַרְתּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְזַלְּפִין עַל מִטָּתוֹ – זֶהוּ סִימָן יָפֶה לַמֵּת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: יְקָרָא דְשָׁכְבֵי הוּא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: It is a good sign for the deceased when he is punished after his death and does not receive an honorable burial or eulogy, as his lack of honor brings him atonement for his sins. For example, if the deceased was not eulogized, or if he was not buried, or if a wild animal dragged his corpse, or if rain fell on his bier, this is a good sign for the deceased. Learn from the baraita that a eulogy is delivered for the honor of the dead, so that when he is deprived of this honor, he achieves atonement for his sins. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the baraita that this is so.
לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין כּוּ׳. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵם קֹבְרִים אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה רָאוּ אֶת הַגְּדוּד וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אֶת הָאִישׁ בְּקֶבֶר אֱלִישָׁע וַיִּגַּע הָאִישׁ בְּעַצְמוֹת אֱלִישָׁע וַיְחִי וַיָּקׇם עַל רַגְלָיו״.
§ The mishna teaches that they would not bury the executed transgressor in his ancestral burial plot, but rather in one of two special graveyards set aside for those executed by the court. The Gemara explains: And why is all this necessary? It is necessary because a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man. As Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: From where is it derived that a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man? As it is stated: “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that behold, they spied a raiding party; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha; and as the man came there, he touched the bones of Elisha, and he revived and stood up on his feet” (II Kings 13:21). The man, who was not righteous, was miraculously resurrected so that he would not remain buried alongside Elisha.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְדִילְמָא לְאִיקְּיוֹמֵי ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: עַל רַגְלָיו עָמַד, וּלְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הָלַךְ.
Rav Pappa said to Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: What proof is there from here? Perhaps the man was resurrected in order to fulfill Elisha’s request of Elijah: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (II Kings 2:9), as now Elisha resurrected two people, the son of the Shunammite woman and this man, as opposed to Elijah, who had resurrected only one person? Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said to Rav Pappa: If so, there is a difficulty, as is this a reasonable explanation in light of what is taught in a baraita: The words “and stood up on his feet” indicate that he arose, but he did not go to his home. The man did not in fact live again but for a moment, indicating that he was resurrected not in order to fulfill Elisha’s request for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, but in order to prevent the disgrace of having a wicked man buried next to Elisha.
אֶלָּא ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם״, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאַחֲיֵיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁרִיפֵּא צָרַעַת נַעֲמָן, שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּמֵת, דִּכְתִיב ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״.
The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to the verse: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me,” where do you find that Elisha resurrected a second person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That request was fulfilled when he cured Naaman’s leprosy (see II Kings, chapter 5), an affliction that is considered to be equivalent to death, as it is written with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12).
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, כָּךְ אֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע חָמוּר אֵצֶל רָשָׁע קַל. וְלִיתְקוֹן אַרְבַּע קְבָרוֹת! שְׁנֵי קְבָרוֹת גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.
The mishna teaches that two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court, one for those who were killed by decapitation or strangulation, and one for those who were stoned or burned. The Gemara explains: Just as a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man, so too an extremely wicked man, i.e., one who committed a grave offense is not buried next to a less wicked man, i.e., one who committed a less severe offense. The Gemara challenges: If so, let them establish four different graveyards, one for each of the different modes of judicial execution. The Gemara answers. It is learned as a tradition that there are two graveyards for those executed by the court, and no more.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְהִשְׁתַּמֵּד וְחָזַר בּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.
§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and he then became an apostate and subsequently retracted his apostasy, despite his retraction, since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, it shall remain rejected.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה, וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.
It was also stated that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and he then became insane, and later he regained his sanity, the animal that he had dedicated as a sin-offering may not be sacrificed. Since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was insane, it shall remain rejected.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיהוּ דְּחָה נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּיָדַיִם, אֲבָל הַאי דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא דָחֵי – אֵימָא כְּיָשֵׁן דָּמֵי.
The Gemara explains: And it was necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to teach us this halakha in both cases. As, had he taught us only the first halakha, with regard to the apostate, I would say that only in that case is the animal rejected forever, because the owner actively rejected himself when he became an apostate. But in this case of insanity, where the owner was rejected automatically, not of his own choice, I would say that he is considered as one who is asleep, so that as soon as he regains his sanity, his offering is once again fit.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לַחְזוֹר, אֲבָל הָתָם דִּבְיָדוֹ לַחְזוֹר, אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.
And had he taught us the halakha only in this second case of insanity, I would say that only in that case is the animal rejected forever, because it was not in the owner’s power to regain his sanity, as one who is insane cannot cure himself. But there, with regard to an apostate, who has the power to retract his apostasy, I would say that his animal is not permanently rejected. It was therefore necessary to teach us the halakha in both cases.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, הָיוּ בָּהּ קֳדָשִׁים, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ יָמוּתוּ, קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת יִפָּדוּ. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אַמַּאי יָמוּתוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיקְּטוּל הָוְיָא לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה, וְלִיסְּקוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ! לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ, יִדָּחוּ?
Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn a similar halakha in a baraita: If consecrated items were found in an idolatrous city, they are not destroyed together with the rest of the property of the city. Animals that had been consecrated to be offered on the altar must be left to die, and property that had been consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed and is then desacralized. And we discussed it: Why must the animals that had been consecrated for the altar be left to die? Once the idolaters are killed, they achieve atonement, and therefore it should be possible to sacrifice their offerings to the Most High. Is it not the case that the animals must be left to die because we say: Since they were rejected when their owners engaged in idol worship, they remain rejected even after their owners achieve atonement for their sins with their death?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי סָבְרַתְּ מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה, דְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתָיו מִדַּרְכֵי צִיבּוּר יִטַּמֵּא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמָּיו.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you maintain that one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting achieves atonement? This is not the case, as one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement, as Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: “There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people, but for his kin that is near to him, for his mother, and for his father” (Leviticus 21:1–2). One might have thought that even if his father had become an apostate and separated himself from the ways of the community, his son the priest shall become ritually impure in order to bury him. Therefore, the verse states: “Among his people,” which teaches that a priest may become ritually impure only for one who performs the actions of his people, that is, one who conducts himself as a Jew. This indicates that one who dies in his wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לְמֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמָיֵית – לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה. נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ מָיֵית – הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה.
Rava said to Abaye: Are you comparing one who was killed in his state of wickedness to one who died in his state of wickedness? An unrepentant sinner who died in his state of wickedness does not achieve atonement, since he died a natural death and there was nothing to bring about his atonement. But a transgressor who was killed in his state of wickedness achieves atonement, even without repentance, since he did not die a natural death, but rather he was executed.
תִּדַּע, דִּכְתִיב: מִזְמוֹר לְאָסָף אֱלֹהִים בָּאוּ גוֹיִם בְּנַחֲלָתֶךָ טִמְּאוּ אֶת הֵיכַל קׇדְשֶׁךָ [וְגוֹ׳] נָתְנוּ אֶת נִבְלַת עֲבָדֶיךָ מַאֲכָל לְעוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּשַׂר חֲסִידֶיךָ לְחַיְתוֹ אָרֶץ״. מַאי ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״ וּמַאי ״חֲסִידֶיךָ״? לָאו ״חֲסִידֶיךָ״ – חֲסִידֶיךָ מַמָּשׁ, ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״ – הָנָךְ דִּמְחַיְּיבִי דִּינָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיקְּטוּל קָרֵי לְהוּ ״עֲבָדֶיךָ״.
Know that this is so, as it is written: “A song to Asaf. O God, nations are come into Your inheritance; they have defiled your Holy Temple; they have laid Jerusalem in heaps. The dead bodies of Your servants they have given to be food to the birds of the sky, the flesh of Your pious ones to the beasts of the earth” (Psalms 79:1–2). What is the meaning of “Your servants” and what is the meaning of “Your pious ones”? Is it not so that the term “Your pious ones” is referring to literally, Your pious ones, those who had always feared God; whereas “Your servants” is referring to those who had initially been liable to receive punishment for their sins, but once they were killed, they are called “Your servants”? This indicates that a transgressor who was executed achieves atonement even without repentance.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית
Abaye said to Rava: Are you comparing
הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת לַהֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין? הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת, כֵּיוָן דְּשֶׁלֹּא בְּדִין קָא מִיקַּטְלִי, הָוְיָא לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה. הֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין, כֵּיוָן דִּבְדִין קָא מִיקַּטְלִי, לָא הָוֵי לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה.
those referred to in the verse in Psalms who were killed by a heathen government to those inhabitants of an idolatrous city who were killed by a Jewish court? Those who were killed by a heathen government, since they were killed unjustly, achieve atonement through their deaths, even without repentance. But those who were killed by a Jewish court, since they were killed justly for their sins, do not achieve atonement unless they repent.
תֵּדַע, דִּתְנַן: לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּקִבְרוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיקְּטוּל הָוְיָא לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה, לִיקַּבְרוּ! מִיתָה וּקְבוּרָה בָּעֵינַן.
The Gemara adds: Know that this is true, as we have learned in the mishna: They would not bury the executed transgressor in his ancestral burial plot. And if it enters your mind to say that once the transgressors are executed by the court, they achieve atonement, let them be buried in their ancestral burial plots. The Gemara rejects this argument: An executed transgressor cannot be buried in his ancestral burial plot, because in order to achieve atonement, both death and burial are needed. But once he is buried in the graveyard set aside for the wicked, he achieves full atonement.
מוֹתֵיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לָא הָיוּ מִתְאַבְּלִין, אֶלָּא אוֹנְנִין, שֶׁאֵין אֲנִינוּת אֶלָּא בַּלֵּב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיקְּבוּר הָוְיָא לְהוּ כַּפָּרָה – לִיאַבְּלוּ!
Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to this from another ruling in the mishna: The relatives of the executed transgressor would not mourn him with the observance of the usual mourning rites, but they would grieve over his passing, since grief is felt only in the heart. And if it enters your mind to say that once the executed transgressors are buried they achieve atonement, let the relatives of the executed transgressor mourn him as well, as he has already achieved atonement.
בָּעֵינַן נָמֵי עִיכּוּל בָּשָׂר. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: נִתְעַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר – מְלַקְּטִין אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתָן בִּמְקוֹמָן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara refutes this argument: An executed transgressor is not mourned, because in order to achieve atonement, decomposition of his flesh is also needed. Once his flesh has decayed, he has achieved full atonement. The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Once the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, they would gather his bones and bury them in their proper place in his ancestral burial plot, indicating that with the decomposition of his flesh, the executed transgressor achieves atonement, so that he may be buried alongside his righteous relatives. The Gemara affirms: Learn from the mishna that this is so.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲבֵילוּת מֵאֵימָתַי קָא מַתְחֲלָא? מִסְּתִימַת הַגּוֹלֵל. כַּפָּרָה מֵאֵימָתַי קָא הָוְיָא? מִכִּי חָזוּ צַעֲרָא דְקִבְרָא פּוּרְתָּא. הִלְכָּךְ, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ יִדָּחוּ.
Rav Ashi says that an alternative resolution of the objection raised by Rav Adda bar Ahava may be suggested: When does the obligation of mourning a deceased relative commence? It begins from the time of the sealing of the grave with the grave cover. And when is atonement achieved? Atonement is achieved when the deceased begins to see and experience a bit of the anguish of the grave. Consequently, since the mourning rites were set aside at the time that they should have begun, they remain permanently set aside, even after the executed transgressor has in fact achieved atonement.
אִי הָכִי, לְמָה לִי עִיכּוּל בָּשָׂר? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the executed transgressor achieves atonement as soon as he experiences a bit of the anguish of burial, why do I need decomposition of his flesh to occur before he can be reburied in his ancestral burial plot? The Gemara answers: Because it is impossible to move a partly decomposed body in a respectful manner, and therefore they wait until the body is fully decomposed.
קִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲווֹ שָׁקְלִי מִינֵּיהּ עַפְרָא לְאִישָּׁתָא בַּת יוֹמָא. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָאוּת עָבְדִין, קַרְקַע עוֹלָם הוּא, וְקַרְקַע עוֹלָם אֵינָהּ נֶאֱסֶרֶת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת עֲפָרָהּ עַל קֶבֶר בְּנֵי הָעָם״, מַקִּישׁ קֶבֶר בְּנֵי הָעָם לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
§ It was related that people would take dirt from the grave of Rav as a cure for a one-day fever. A number of people came and told Shmuel about this practice, thinking that perhaps the dirt should be forbidden, as one may not derive benefit from a corpse. Shmuel said to them: They are acting properly, as the dirt in the grave is natural ground, and natural ground does not become forbidden in any situation, as it is written: “And he brought out the ashera from the house of the Lord…and beat it into dust, and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people” (II Kings 23:6). This verse juxtaposes the graves of the common people to objects of idol worship.
מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בִּמְחוּבָּר לָא מִיתַּסְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים״. עַל הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. הָכָא נָמֵי, בִּמְחוּבָּר לָא מִיתְּסַר.
This teaches that just as objects of idol worship are not forbidden when attached to the ground; the Gemara interjects by teaching the source of this halakha: As it is written: “You shall utterly destroy all the places, in which the nations whom you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree. And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their asherim with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:2–3); i.e., there is an obligation to destroy their gods that are upon the mountains, but there is no obligation to destroy the mountains that are themselves their gods, meaning that if people worshipped the mountain itself as a god, there is no need to destroy it, as anything that is attached to the ground does not become forbidden. The Gemara resumes the comparison: Here too, with regard to the prohibition against deriving benefit from a corpse, the dirt in the grave that is attached to the ground does not become forbidden.
מֵיתִיבִי: הַחוֹצֵב קֶבֶר לְאָבִיו, וְהָלַךְ וּקְבָרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִקָּבֵר בּוֹ עוֹלָמִית. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּקֶבֶר בִּנְיָן.
The Gemara raises an objection against this ruling from a baraita: If one hews a grave for his deceased father in one place, and he then goes and buries him in a different place, the son may never be buried in the grave that he had dug, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a grave that had been prepared for another. This indicates that even that which is attached to the ground can become an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing not with a grave dug in the ground, but with a cave that was constructed above ground out of rocks that were hewn from the ground. In such a case all of the stones used in the construction become forbidden, as they were detached from the ground.
תָּא שְׁמַע: קֶבֶר חָדָשׁ מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הֵטִיל בּוֹ נֵפֶל – אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּקֶבֶר בִּנְיָן.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to a fresh grave that was not designated for anyone in particular, 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. This indicates that even a grave that is attached to the ground can become forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here too, the reference is to a grave that was constructed above ground out of rocks that were detached from the ground.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ קְבָרוֹת הֵן – קֶבֶר הַנִּמְצָא, קֶבֶר הַיָּדוּעַ, קֶבֶר הַמַּזִּיק אֶת הָרַבִּים. קֶבֶר הַנִּמְצָא – מוּתָּר לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. פִּינָּהוּ – מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from another baraita: It turns out that you say that there are three types of graves, and each type is governed by different halakhot with regard to whether or not a corpse may be removed from the grave and buried elsewhere: A newly found grave, a known grave, and a grave that causes damage to the public. How so? With regard to a newly found grave, i.e., a grave in which a corpse had been buried without the permission of the property’s owner, one is permitted to remove the corpse from the grave and bury it elsewhere. After he has removed the corpse, the place of the grave is ritually pure and he is permitted to derive benefit from it.
קֶבֶר הַיָּדוּעַ, אָסוּר לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. פִּינָּהוּ – מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
With regard to a known grave, i.e., a grave in which a corpse had been buried with the permission of the property’s owner, it is prohibited to remove the corpse from the grave and bury it elsewhere. If one went ahead and removed the corpse, the place of the grave is ritually impure and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
קֶבֶר הַמַּזִּיק אֶת הָרַבִּים, מוּתָּר לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. פִּינָּהוּ – מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּקֶבֶר בִּנְיָן.
As for a grave that causes damage to the public, e.g., a grave that was dug on a public road and causes the passersby to contract ritual impurity, one is permitted to remove the corpse from the grave and bury it elsewhere. After he has removed the corpse, the place is ritually pure, but nevertheless, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. This indicates that even that which is attached to the ground can become forbidden, even after the corpse has been removed from the grave. The Gemara answers: Here too, the reference is to a grave that was constructed above ground.
וְקֶבֶר הַנִּמְצָא מוּתָּר לְפַנּוֹתוֹ? דִּילְמָא מֵת מִצְוָה הוּא, וּמֵת מִצְוָה קָנָה מְקוֹמוֹ! שָׁאנֵי מֵת מִצְוָה, דְּקָלָא אִית לֵיהּ.
Having cited this last baraita, the Gemara raises a question about one of its details: As for a newly found grave, is one really permitted to remove the corpse just because it was buried there without the owner’s permission? But perhaps this is a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. If the deceased has no relatives or acquaintances to bury him, everyone is obligated to assist in his burial. And the halakha is that a met mitzva acquires its place, i.e., the corpse is buried where it was found, and one is not permitted to remove it. The Gemara answers: A met mitzva is different, as it generates publicity. Were the corpse buried in the newly found grave that of a met mitzva, people would have heard about it.
אִיתְּמַר: הָאוֹרֵג בֶּגֶד לַמֵּת, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אָסוּר, וְרָבָא אָמַר: מוּתָּר.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the halakha in the following case: With regard to one who weaves a garment for one who has died, what is the halakha? Abaye says: It is prohibited to derive benefit from the garment, even if it was never actually used as a shroud. And Rava says: It is permitted to derive benefit from the garment.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר אָסוּר – הַזְמָנָה מִלְּתָא הִיא. וְרָבָא אָמַר מוּתָּר – הַזְמָנָה לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא.
The Gemara explains their respective opinions. Abaye says that one is prohibited from deriving benefit from the garment, since he maintains that mere designation of an item is a significant matter, i.e., all the relevant halakhot of an item already apply once an item is designated for a specific purpose, whether or not it has been used for that purpose. Therefore, a garment woven for one who had died is forbidden as if it had already been used as a shroud. And Rava says that the garment is permitted, as he maintains that mere designation is nothing, and therefore the garment becomes prohibited only once it is actually used as a shroud.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּאַבָּיֵי? גָּמַר ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה. מָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה בְּהַזְמָנָה מִיתַּסְרָא, הַאי נָמֵי בְּהַזְמָנָה מִיתַּסְרָא.
The Gemara explains further: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Abaye? He derives a verbal analogy between the word “there” written in the context of a grave, from the word “there” written in the context of a heifer whose neck is broken. The verse states concerning a grave: “And Miriam died there and she was buried there” (Numbers 20:1), and the verse states concerning a heifer whose neck is broken: “And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a hard valley, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as it becomes prohibited to derive benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken through mere designation, i.e., as soon as the animal is designated as such, here too, it becomes prohibited to derive benefit from the items relating to a dead person through mere designation.
וְרָבָא גָּמַר ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּהַזְמָנָה לָא מִיתַּסְרָא, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי בְּהַזְמָנָה לָא מִיתַּסְרָא.
And Rava derives a verbal analogy between the word “there” written in the context of a grave from the word “there” written in the context of objects of idol worship. The verse states concerning objects of idol worship: “The places in which the nations…served their gods there” (Deuteronomy 12:2). Just as it does not become prohibited to derive benefit from objects of idol worship through mere designation, but only through actual ritual worship, so too, here it does not become prohibited to derive benefit from items relating to a deceased person through mere designation.
וְרָבָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא גָּמַר מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה? אָמַר לָךְ:
The Gemara asks: And Rava, what is the reason that he does not derive a verbal analogy from a heifer whose neck is broken? The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you:
