Sanhedrin 47

תא שמע ׳נבזה בעיניו נמאס׳ זה חזקיהו מלך יהודה שגירר עצמות אביו על מטה של חבלים ואי משום יקרא דחיי הוא מאי טעמא

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?

כי היכי דתיהוי ליה כפרה לאבוה ומשום כפרה דאבוה משהו ליה ליקרא דישראל ישראל גופייהו ניחא להו דמיחלי יקרייהו לגביה

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.

תא שמע אמר להן ׳אל תספדוני בעיירות׳ ואי אמרת יקרא דחיי מאי נפקא ליה מינה קסבר ליתייקרו ביה ישראל טפי

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.

תא שמע הלינו לכבודו להביא לו ארון ותכריכין אינו עובר עליו מאי לאו לכבודו של מת לא לכבודו של חי

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.

ומשום כבודו של חי מבית ליה למת אין כי אמר רחמנא לא תלין נבלתו על העץ דומיא דתלוי דאית ביה בזיון אבל הכא כיון דלית ביה בזיון לא

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.

תא שמע הלינו לכבודו לשמע עליו עיירות להביא לו מקוננות להביא לו ארון ותכריכין אינו עובר עליו שכל העושה אינו אלא לכבודו של מת הכי קאמר כל העושה לכבודו של חי אין בו בזיון למת

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.

תא שמע רבי נתן אומר סימן יפה למת שנפרעין ממנו לאחר מיתה מת שלא נספד ולא נקבר או שחיה גוררתו או שהיו גשמים מזלפין על מטתו זהו סימן יפה למת שמע מינה יקרא דשכבי הוא שמע מינה

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.

לא היו קוברין כו׳ וכל כך למה לפי שאין קוברין רשע אצל צדיק דאמר רבי אחא בר חנינא מנין שאין קוברין רשע אצל צדיק שנאמר ויהי הם קברים איש והנה ראו את הגדוד וישליכו את האיש בקבר אלישע ויגע האיש בעצמות אלישע ויחי ויקם על רגליו

§ 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.

אמר ליה רב פפא ודילמא לאיקיומא ויהי נא פי שנים ברוחך אלי אמר ליה אי הכי היינו דתניא על רגליו עמד ולביתו לא הלך

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.

אלא ויהי נא פי שנים היכי משכחת לה דאחייא אמר ליה רבי יוחנן שריפא צרעת נעמן שהיא שקולה כמת דכתיב אל נא תהי כמת

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).

וכשם שאין קוברין רשע אצל צדיק כך אין קוברין רשע חמור אצל רשע קל וליתקון ארבע קברות שני קברות גמרא גמירי לה

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.

אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן אכל חלב והפריש קרבן והשתמד וחזר בו הואיל ונדחה ידחה

§ 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.

איתמר נמי אמר רבי ירמיה אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן אכל חלב והפריש קרבן ונשתטה וחזר ונשתפה הואיל ונדחה ידחה

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.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא משום דאיהו דחה נפשיה בידים אבל האי דממילא קא דחי אימא כישן דמי

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.

ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דאין בידו לחזור אבל התם דבידו לחזור אימא לא צריכא

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.

אמר רב יוסף אף אנן נמי תנינא היו בה קדשים קדשי מזבח ימותו קדשי בדק הבית יפדו והוינן בה אמאי ימותו כיון דאיקטול הויא להו כפרה וליסקו לגבוה לאו משום דאמרינן הואיל ונדחו ידחו

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?

אמר ליה אביי מי סברת מת מתוך רשעו הויא ליה כפרה מת מתוך רשעו לא הויא ליה כפרה דתני רב שמעיה יכול אפילו פירשו אבותיו מדרכי ציבור יטמא תלמוד לומר ׳בעמיו׳ בעושה מעשה עמיו

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.

אמר ליה רבא מי קא מדמית נהרג מתוך רשעו למת מתוך רשעו מת מתוך רשעו כיון דכי אורחיה קמיית לא הויא ליה כפרה נהרג מתוך רשעו כיון דלאו כי אורחיה מיית הויא ליה כפרה

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.

תדע דכתיב מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך טמאו את היכל קדשך [וגו׳] נתנו את נבלת עבדיך מאכל לעוף השמים בשר חסידיך לחיתו ארץ מאי עבדיך ומאי חסידיך לאו חסידיך חסידיך ממש עבדיך הנך דמחייבי דינא דמעיקרא וכיון דאיקטול קרי להו עבדיך

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.

אמר ליה אביי מי קא מדמית

Abaye said to Rava: Are you comparing

הרוגי מלכות להרוגי בית דין הרוגי מלכות כיון דשלא בדין קא מיקטלי הויא להו כפרה הרוגי בית דין כיון דבדין קא מיקטלי לא הוי להו כפרה

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.

תדע דתנן לא היו קוברין אותו בקברות אבותיו ואי סלקא דעתך כיון דאיקטול הויא להו כפרה ליקברו מיתה וקבורה בעינן

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.

מותיב רב אדא בר אהבה לא היו מתאבלין אלא אוננין שאין אנינות אלא בלב ואי סלקא דעתך כיון דאיקבור הויא להו כפרה ליאבלו

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.

בעינן נמי עיכול בשר דיקא נמי דקתני נתעכל הבשר מלקטין את העצמות וקוברין אותן במקומן שמע מינה

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.

רב אשי אמר אבילות מאימתי קא מתחלת מסתימת הגולל כפרה מאימתי קא הויא מכי חזו צערא דקברא פורתא הלכך הואיל ואידחו ידחו

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.

אי הכי למה לי עיכול בשר משום דלא אפשר

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.

קבריה דרב הוו שקלי מיניה עפרא לאישתא בת יומא אתו אמרו ליה לשמואל אמר להו יאות עבדין קרקע עולם הוא וקרקע עולם אינה נאסרת דכתיב וישלך את עפרה על קבר בני העם מקיש קבר בני העם לעבודה זרה

§ 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.

מה עבודה זרה במחובר לא מיתסרא דכתיב אשר אתם ירשים אתם את אלהיהם על ההרים הרמים על ההרים אלהיהם ולא ההרים אלהיהם הכא נמי במחובר לא מיתסר

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.

מיתיבי החוצב קבר לאביו והלך וקברו במקום אחר הרי זה לא יקבר בו עולמית הכא במאי עסקינן בקבר בנין

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.

תא שמע קבר חדש מותר בהנאה הטיל בו נפל אסור בהנאה הכא נמי בקבר בנין

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.

תא שמע נמצא אתה אומר שלש קברות הן קבר הנמצא קבר הידוע קבר המזיק את הרבים קבר הנמצא מותר לפנותו פינהו מקומו טהור ומותר בהנאה

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.

קבר הידוע אסור לפנותו פינהו מקומו טמא ואסור בהנאה

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.

קבר המזיק את הרבים מותר לפנותו פינהו מקומו טהור ואסור בהנאה הכא נמי בקבר בנין

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.

וקבר הנמצא מותר לפנותו דילמא מת מצוה הוא ומת מצוה קנה מקומו שאני מת מצוה דקלא אית ליה

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.

איתמר האורג בגד למת אביי אמר אסור ורבא אמר מותר

§ 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.

אביי אמר אסור הזמנה מלתא היא ורבא אמר מותר הזמנה לאו מילתא היא

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.

מאי טעמא דאביי גמר שם שם מעגלה ערופה מה עגלה ערופה בהזמנה מיתסרא האי נמי בהזמנה מיתסרא

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.

ורבא גמר שם שם מעבודה זרה מה עבודה זרה בהזמנה לא מיתסרא אף הכא נמי בהזמנה לא מיתסרא

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.

ורבא מאי טעמא לא גמר מעגלה ערופה אמר לך

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: