Sanhedrin 47b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him: Are you comparing ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

those executed by the authorities

who were killed by the gentiles

to those executed by the court,

such as the inhabitants of an apostate city?!

With regard to those executed by the authorities, since they are killed not according to law,

therefore

they have atonement.

But

with regard to those executed by the court, since they are killed according to law, they do not have atonement.

And once again there is no proof for Rabbi Yohanan from the offerings of an apostate city, for they did not attain atonement through their execution.

Know

that this is so,

as we learned

in the Mishna concerning one executed by the court:

They would not bury him in the burial places of his fathers,

because they do not bury a wicked person beside a righteous person.

And if it should enter your mind

that

since they were killed they have

atonement,

then

let them be buried

why should they not bury him in the burial places of his fathers, since his sin has already attained atonement for him through his execution?

Rather, certainly those executed by the court do not have atonement.

And the Gemara rejects this: Even if his execution atones for him, nevertheless,

we require death and burial,

for it is only together with the burial that it atones, and therefore they do not bury him in the graves of his fathers, since before the burial his sin has not yet attained atonement for him.

If so, the proof for Rabbi Yohanan from the apostate city returns, that their offerings are not sacrificed, even after their burial, and necessarily this is because once they have been rejected, they are rejected.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection

to what we said, that burial together with death atones for those executed by the court, as we learned in the Mishna:

They would not mourn

over those executed by the court,

but they would observe the first-day mourning

only,

for first-day mourning exists only in the heart.

And if it should enter your mind

that

since they were buried they have atonement,

then

let them mourn

why should their relatives not mourn over them, since they have already attained atonement through the burial?

And the Gemara answers:

We also require the decomposition of the flesh;

burial alone is not sufficient, but the flesh must also decompose, and only then do they attain atonement.

It is also precise

and this is also precise from our Mishna:

For it teaches: When the flesh has decomposed, they gather the bones and bury them in their place

in the burial places of his fathers, because through the decomposition of the flesh he has already attained atonement.

Infer from this!

Rav Ashi said:

In truth, the decomposition of the flesh is not required; rather, the slight suffering of the shaking of the grave is sufficient for him to attain atonement. Nevertheless, why is it not difficult that they should observe mourning immediately after the burial?

Because

mourning, from when does it begin,

from when do the laws of mourning take effect?

From the closing of the grave!

Immediately when they place its covering over the coffin.

But

atonement, from when does it take effect?

From when do those executed by the court attain atonement? Only afterward,

once they have experienced a little of the suffering of the grave,

when they feel a little of the suffering of the shaking of the grave.

Therefore, once they have been rejected, they are rejected!

Since the mourning did not take effect at the beginning of the time of mourning, for at that time they had not yet attained atonement, it will never take effect.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, why do I need the decomposition of the flesh,

why does the Mishna say that they wait until after the flesh has decomposed, and only then transfer him to the burial places of his fathers? After all, immediately after the burial, once a little time has passed, he could already be transferred to the burial places of his fathers. And the Gemara answers:

Because it is impossible,

because his abdomen bursts in the grave and he putrefies; therefore it is impossible to transfer him until the flesh decomposes.

At Rav’s grave, they would take earth from it for one-day-old tuberculosis

people would customarily take earth from Rav’s grave and use it as a remedy for healing tuberculosis on its first day.

They came

and

said to Shmuel

that this is what people do, but it is forbidden to derive benefit from the dead person and his grave.

He said to them: They are doing properly

they are acting according to law, for there is no prohibition in the matter.

Because the earth of the grave

is natural ground, and natural ground

of the dead person

does not become forbidden

for benefit.

As it is written [Kings II 22:6], that Josiah removed the idolatry from the Temple: “He burned it in the Wadi Kidron and ground it to dust,

and cast its dust upon the grave of the common people.”

And he cast its dust upon the grave of the common people”

The grave of the common people is juxtaposed to idolatry

since both are stated here in the same verse:

Just as idolatry,

which is

attached

to the ground,

is not forbidden, as it is written [Deuteronomy 12:2], “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there,

which you are dispossessing, their gods, upon the high mountains,”

and we expound that only when

their gods are upon the mountains

then their gods become forbidden and must be destroyed,

but

not

when

the mountains

themselves are

their gods;

the mountains need not be destroyed, since idolatry attached to the ground does not become forbidden.

Here too,

with regard to the grave, which is

attached to the ground, it is not forbidden.

He raised an objection

to Shmuel: It was taught in a beraita:

One who hewed a grave for his father

after he died,

and

eventually

went and buried him in another place, he may not be buried in it

the son

ever,

since this grave was designated for a dead person’s use, it becomes forbidden for benefit, and it is forbidden to be buried in it.

Thus, even a grave attached to the ground becomes forbidden for benefit, and this is difficult for Shmuel. And the Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a built grave.

He built the grave above the ground, for in such a case it also becomes forbidden in the case of idolatry, because “detached and then reattached” is considered detached with regard to idolatry; therefore such a grave too is forbidden for benefit.

Come and hear

a difficulty for Shmuel from that which was taught:

A new grave

that was not hewn for the sake of a person who had already died, but for the sake of a person who was still alive, or that he hewed it without specification in order to bury someone in it when he would need it,

is permitted for benefit,

for the designation “grave” does not yet apply to it.

If he placed a stillborn infant in it,

the designation “grave” takes effect upon it, and

it is forbidden for benefit.

Thus, even something attached to the ground is forbidden for benefit.

And the Gemara answers:

Here too,

it is speaking

of a grave

built

above the ground.

Come and hear

a difficulty for Shmuel: It was taught:

You therefore find that there are three graves.

Three types of graves, and each one has a different law:

a.

A discovered grave

where the owner of the field suddenly found a new grave inside his field, which was not made with his consent, but rather someone was buried there by robbery.

b.

A known grave

where someone was buried there with the consent of the owner of the field.

c.

A grave that harms the public

which is found in a place where many people pass and become impure with the impurity of the tent of the dead.

And these are their laws: a.

A discovered grave may be removed

because the dead person did not acquire his place.

And after

it was cleared, its place is pure

for although the Sages decreed impurity upon a grave, that it should impart impurity forever, even after the deceased had been removed from there, nevertheless, in the case of such a grave, which was made without permission, they did not decree.

And the

grave

is permitted for benefit

after it was cleared, and although a grave is biblically forbidden for benefit forever, here it does not have the status of a grave that would render it forbidden for benefit.

b.

A known grave, it is forbidden to clear it.

And if

he cleared it

the deceased from the grave,

its place is impure

by rabbinic law, for they decreed that it should impart impurity forever, so that one would not come to clear it.

And

the place

is forbidden for benefit

by Torah law, even after the deceased was removed from there.

c.

A grave that harms the public, it is permitted to clear it

permission was given to clear it so that the public would not be harmed by becoming impure through it.

And after

it was cleared, its place is pure

for the Sages did not decree impurity in a place where the public would be harmed by this.

And the place

is forbidden for benefit

because it is impossible to remove the prohibition of benefit, which is by Torah law.

It follows that a grave attached to the ground is forbidden for benefit, and this is difficult for Shmuel?

And the Gemara answers:

here too, [it is referring to] a built grave.

And the Gemara asks about this baraita:

And

when

a found grave—is it permitted to clear it!?

And why should we not be concerned

perhaps it is an unattended corpse, and an unattended corpse acquires its place.

For this was one of the conditions that Joshua stipulated upon their entering the Land of Israel: that the place where an unattended corpse fell at the time of its death, it acquired for burial, and the owner of the field cannot prevent it?

And the Gemara answers:

An unattended corpse is different, for it has publicity.

It is publicized, and therefore we have no concern that perhaps it was an unattended corpse.

It was stated: One who wove a garment for the deceased

after he died—

Abaye said:

The garment

is forbidden

for benefit.

And Rava said:

The garment

is permitted

for benefit.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

Abaye said: It is forbidden,

because

designation is substantive,

for by designating the garment for the needs of the deceased, and the deceased’s name being called upon it, it is considered as though he had already dressed the deceased in it; therefore, it becomes forbidden for benefit.

And Rava said: It is permitted,

because

designation

alone

is not substantive.

And as long as he has not dressed the deceased in it, it is not considered the deceased’s garment, to be rendered forbidden for benefit.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is Abaye’s reason

that designation is substantive?

And the Gemara explains: because Abaye

derived a gzera shava,

“

name

name”—

the deceased

from the beheaded heifer.

For concerning the deceased it is said, “And Miriam died there and was buried there,” and concerning the beheaded heifer it is likewise said, “And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley.”

Just as the beheaded heifer, through designation

alone,

becomes forbidden

for it is established that as soon as the beheaded heifer descends into the rugged valley, it becomes forbidden for benefit, even though its neck has not yet been broken,

so too,

the needs of the deceased,

through designation

alone,

become forbidden.

And Rava’s

reason is because

he derived

“

name” “

name”

from idolatry, for concerning idolatry it is likewise said, “which the nations worshiped there.”

Just as idolatry, through designation

alone,

does not become forbidden

for one who says concerning a house that he designates it to serve idolatry does not thereby render it forbidden until he actually serves idolatry with it, because it is stated, “which the nations worshiped there,” implying only from the time that they worshiped it,

so too here,

in the case of the deceased,

through designation it does not become forbidden.

And the Gemara discusses:

And what is Rava’s reason for not deriving [the law] from the beheaded heifer?

And the Gemara answers:

Rava could say

Rava: