Sanhedrin 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said to him: Are you comparing

those executed by the government

who were executed by gentiles

to those executed by the court,

such as the inhabitants of an idolatrous city!?

Those executed by the government, since they are executed unlawfully,

therefore

their execution effects atonement for them.

But

those executed by the court, since they are executed lawfully, their execution does not effect atonement for them.

Thus, there is again no proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan from the offerings of an idolatrous city, since their execution does not effect atonement for them.

Know

that this is so,

as we learned

in the Mishna concerning one executed by the court:

They would not bury him in the graves of his fathers,

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

And if it enters your mind

that

once they are executed, it effects

atonement for them,

then

let them bury him

Why should they not bury him in the graves of his fathers, since his sin has already been atoned for through his execution?

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

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

we require death and burial

for atonement to take effect only together with burial. Therefore, they do not bury him in the graves of his fathers, since before burial his sin has not yet been atoned for.

If so, the proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan from the idolatrous city is restored: Its offerings are not sacrificed, even after the inhabitants have been buried, and necessarily this is because once they have been rejected, they are permanently rejected.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection

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

They would not observe mourning

for those executed by the court,

but only observe the acute mourning

alone,

as acute mourning is only in the heart.

And if it enters your mind

that

once they have been buried, it effects atonement for them,

then

let their relatives observe mourning.

Why should their relatives not mourn for them, since their sin has already been atoned for through the burial?

The Gemara answers:

We also require the flesh to decompose;

burial alone is insufficient. The flesh must also decompose, and only then is atonement effected for them.

This is also precise

and this is likewise indicated precisely by our Mishna,

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

in the graves of his fathers, because his sin has already been atoned for through the decomposition of the flesh.

Learn from this!

Rav Ashi said:

In fact, the decomposition of the flesh is not required; the slight suffering of the convulsions of the grave suffices to effect atonement for him. Nevertheless, why do they not observe mourning immediately after the burial?

Because

when does mourning begin?

When do the laws of mourning take effect?

When the closing slab is sealed!

Immediately upon placing the covering over the coffin.

But

when does atonement take effect?

When is atonement effected for those executed by the court? Only afterward,

once they experience a little of the suffering of the grave,

when they feel a little of the convulsions of the grave.

Therefore, since it has been rejected, it is permanently rejected!

Since mourning did not take effect at the initial time when mourning should have begun, as at that point their sin had not yet been atoned for, it will never take effect.

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 graves of his fathers? Immediately after the burial, once he has experienced a little suffering, they should already be able to transfer him to the graves of his fathers. The Gemara answers:

Because it is impossible.

His abdomen ruptures in the grave and he gives off a foul odor; therefore it is impossible to transfer him until the flesh has decomposed.

They would take earth from Rav’s grave for one-day-old tuberculosis

People would take earth from Rav’s grave and use it as a remedy for tuberculosis on the first day of the illness.

They came

and

said to Shmuel

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

He said to them: They are acting properly;

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

Because the earth of the grave

is natural ground, and natural ground

belonging to the dead person

does not become prohibited

for deriving benefit.

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

and cast its dust on the grave of the common people,”

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

The grave of the common people is juxtaposed to idolatry,

as both are mentioned in this verse. The comparison is as follows:

Just as idolatry,

which is

attached

to the ground,

is not prohibited, as it is written: [Deuteronomy 12:2], “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations worshipped their gods,

which you are dispossessing, on the lofty mountains,”

which you are dispossessing, on the lofty mountains,”

and we interpret this to mean that only when

their gods are upon the mountains

are their gods prohibited 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 is not prohibited.

The same applies here:

Here too,

with regard to a grave that is

attached to the ground, it is not prohibited.

Meitivi

to Shmuel: It was taught in a beraita:

One who excavates a grave for his father,

after he died,

and

in the end

went and buried him elsewhere, may not be buried in it

the son

ever,

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

Thus, a grave attached to the ground also becomes prohibited for deriving benefit, which is difficult for Shmuel. The Gemara answers:

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

It was built above the ground. In such a case, even with regard to idolatry it becomes prohibited, because something detached and subsequently attached is considered detached with regard to idolatry; therefore, such a grave is likewise prohibited for deriving benefit.

Ta shma,

a difficulty against Shmuel from the following beraita:

A new grave,

which was not excavated for the needs of a person who had already died, but for a person who was still alive, or which was excavated without a specific purpose, in order to bury someone in it when the need arose,

is permitted for deriving benefit,

since it does not yet have the status of a “grave.”

If one placed a fetus in it,

once it has been placed inside the grave, it acquires the status of a “grave” and

is prohibited for deriving benefit.

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

The Gemara answers:

Here too,

it is referring

to a

built

grave above the ground.

Ta shma,

a difficulty against Shmuel: It was taught in a beraita:

You therefore find that there are three types of graves.

There are three kinds of graves, and each 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 was dug there unlawfully.

B.

A known grave,

which was made there with the consent of the owner of the field.

C.

A grave that harms the public,

which is located in a place where many people pass and become impure with the ritual impurity of the tent of a corpse.

These are their laws: A.

A discovered grave may be removed,

because the dead person did not acquire its place.

And after

it was removed, its place is pure,

for although the Sages decreed that a grave conveys impurity forever, even after the corpse has been removed from it, nevertheless, with regard to such a grave, which was made without authorization, they did not issue this decree.

And it is permitted

for the grave

to be used for benefit

after the corpse was removed from it. Although a grave is biblically prohibited for benefit forever, in this case it does not have the status of a grave that would render it prohibited for benefit.

b.

A known grave may not be cleared.

And if

it was cleared,

the corpse from the grave,

its place is impure,

by rabbinic decree, as they decreed that the grave should convey impurity forever, so that one would not come to clear it.

And

the place

is prohibited for benefit

by Torah law, even after the corpse was removed from it.

c.

A grave that is harming the public may be cleared,

as permission was granted 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,

as the Sages did not decree impurity in a place where the public would be harmed as a result.

And the place

is prohibited for benefit,

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

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

And the Gemara answers:

Here too, it is referring to a built grave.

And the Gemara raises a question concerning this beraita:

And

when

a found grave may be cleared!?

And why should we not be concerned

that perhaps it is the grave of a met mitzva, and a met mitzva acquires its place?

For this was one of the conditions that Joshua stipulated upon their entry into the Land of Israel: Wherever a met mitzva fell at the time of his death, he acquired that place for burial, and the owner of the field may not prevent him from being buried there?

And the Gemara answers:

The case of a met mitzva is different, as it has publicity.

It becomes known, and therefore we need not be concerned that perhaps it was a met mitzva.

It was stated: One who weaves a garment for a corpse

after it has died—

Abaye said:

The garment

is prohibited

for benefit.

And Rava said:

The garment

is permitted

for benefit.

And the Gemara explains the reason for their dispute:

Abaye said: It is prohibited,

because

designation is significant,

for by designating the garment for the needs of the corpse and assigning the corpse’s name to it, it is considered as though the corpse had already been dressed in it, and therefore it becomes prohibited for benefit.

And Rava said: It is permitted,

because

designation

alone

is not significant.

As long as the corpse has not been dressed in it, it is not considered the corpse’s garment and is not prohibited for benefit.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is Abaye’s reason

that designation is significant?

And the Gemara explains: Because Abaye

derives a gezerah shavah

of the word

“there”

“there”—

with regard to a corpse

from the beheaded heifer.

For with regard to a corpse it is stated: “And Miriam died there and was buried there,” and with regard to the beheaded heifer it is likewise stated: “And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley.”

Just as the beheaded heifer, through designation

alone,

becomes prohibited,

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

so too,

the needs of the corpse,

through designation

alone,

become prohibited.

And Rava

explains his position because

he derives the expression

“there”

“there”

from idolatry,

as it is also stated with regard to idolatry: “which the nations worshiped there.”

Just as in the case of idolatry, through designation

alone,

it does not become prohibited,

for one who says of a house that he is designating it to serve idolatry does not thereby render it prohibited until it actually serves idolatry, as it is stated: “which the nations worshiped there,” implying only from the time that it was worshiped,

so too here,

with regard to a corpse,

through designation it does not become prohibited.

And the Gemara discusses this:

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

And the Gemara answers:

Rava can say to you:

Rava said: