Sanhedrin 48b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

there

this is not an invitation at all, because they do this only

because of their grief

out of sorrow.

And the Gemara objects:

If so, this is what he teaches afterward: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these words said

that it is possible to save the garments that were thrown upon him, when

they did not touch the bier, but

if

they touched the bier, they are forbidden.

And if they do this only out of sorrow, why should they become forbidden through touching the bier?

And the Gemara answers:

Ulla explained:

it is speaking

of a bier that is buried with him

—that the garments touched the bier on which they carry him for burial, and they were accustomed also to bury the bier with him. Therefore, although according to the fundamental law we should not have forbidden garments that touched the bier, nevertheless the Sages decreed concerning them because

they are confused with the shrouds of the dead man,

since they resemble the shrouds of the dead man in which he is dressed when he lies on this bier; and if we permit these garments, they will come to permit also using the shrouds of the dead man.

But if the garments had touched only the bier upon which he dies, we would not decree concerning them because of the shrouds of the dead man, since then the dead man is still not dressed in shrouds, and there is no concern that they will confuse one with the other.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

A pouch that one made to place tefillin in—it is forbidden to place money in it.

And if

he placed tefillin in it

only occasionally,

he may place money in it.

Thus, even if he has still not placed the tefillin inside the pouch, it has already become forbidden because of the designation alone; and this is difficult for Rava, who says that an intended designation is not significant?

And the Gemara answers:

Say

that the beraita means specifically that if he

made it and

also

placed tefillin in it, it is forbidden to place money in it,

but through the making alone it does not become forbidden, because an intended designation is not significant.

And although this is obvious, the beraita comes to teach us the latter clause: through placing [tefillin] alone, the pouch does not become forbidden.

In accordance with Rav Hisda,

who said that if he wrapped [tefillin] in it but did not designate it [for that purpose], it is permitted to place money in it.

Come and hear:

It was taught in a beraita:

He said to a craftsman: Make for me a case for a scroll,

a container for a Torah scroll,

or a case for tefillin.

Before he used them for sacred use, it is permitted to use them for ordinary use.

But if he had already

used them for sacred use, it is forbidden to use them for ordinary use.

It is explicit, then, that designation alone does not prohibit until he actually uses it for sacred use; and this is difficult for Abaye?

And the Gemara answers:

It is a dispute among tannaim.

The matter is disputed among tannaim, whether an intended designation is significant or not. And Abaye will hold in accordance with that tanna who holds that an intended designation is significant.

For it was taught:

Tefillin that

he plated with gold,

that he made the compartments of gold,

or that he covered them

—from the expression “patch”—that he made the compartments from

the hide of an impure animal,

they are

invalid,

because the compartments must be made from the hide of a pure animal permitted for eating, as it is stated in the passage of tefillin: “So that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth”; and they expound from “in your mouth” that it must be from that which is permitted in your mouth.

And if he made the compartments from

the hide of a pure animal,

they are

valid, even though he did not process them

the hide

for their sake,

for the sake of tefillin, because an intended designation is not significant; consequently, it does not matter to us whether he processed the hide for its sake or not, since processing the hide is only in the category of an intended designation.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even the hide of a pure animal is invalid until they process it

the hide

for their sake,

because he holds that an intended designation is significant, and the processing must also be for their sake.

Thus, tannaim disputed this law of whether an intended designation is significant.

Ravina said to Rava: Is there a place where a dead man is lying and they weave a garment for the dead man,

is such a thing realistically possible—that the dead man lies in disgrace and they wait until they weave a garment for him—so that you and Abaye are disputing a case of weaving a garment for the dead, an option that does not exist in practice?

He said to him

Rava:

Yes!

Such a reality does exist,

for example, the dead of Harpanya,

the dead of that place called “Harpanya,” who had become poor, and only after death would people collect money and weave inexpensive shrouds for them.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Abaye,

that an intended designation is significant.

And the Sages say: The halakha is in accordance with Rava,

that an intended designation is not significant.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rava!

The Sages taught: Those executed by the kingdom,

who were sentenced to death by the kings of Israel because they rebelled against him, as it is stated concerning Joshua [1:18]: “Any man who rebels against your commandment, etc., shall be put to death,”

their property belongs to the king,

the king inherits all their property.

Those executed by the court—their property belongs to the heirs,

of the executed man.

Rabbi Judah says: Even those executed by the kingdom—their property belongs to the heirs.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Judah:

But it has already been stated,

after Jezebel, the wife of Ahab king of Israel, arranged that Naboth be killed because he refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab, and did so through false witnesses who testified that Naboth had cursed Ahab the king; and the Name said to Elijah [I Kings 21:18]: “Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel who is in Samaria,

behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he went down to inherit it.”

And from the fact that it says “to inherit it,” it follows that it was a complete inheritance: that Ahab lawfully took Naboth’s vineyard because the property of those executed by the kingdom belongs to the king?

He said to them,

Rabbi Judah: Naboth

was the son of his father’s brother

of Ahab,

and was fit to inherit him,

Ahab; therefore he inherited his vineyard, and not because of the law of those executed by the kingdom.

They said to him,

the Sages:

But he had many sons,

Naboth, and they precede Ahab in inheritance; why, then, did Ahab inherit him?

He said to them,

Rabbi Judah:

He killed him and his sons,

Ahab, and only he remained as heir.

As it is stated [there, II Kings 9:26] concerning Ahab: “If I did not see the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons,”

“there”

“the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons”,

which implies that he also killed his sons.

And the Sages

hold that Ahab did not kill Naboth’s sons, and

that

which is stated, “the blood of his sons,” does not refer to his actual sons,

but to sons destined to issue from him,

who are considered as though he killed them.

And the Gemara analyzes:

Granted, according to the one who says

that those executed by the kingdom

their property belongs to the king,

and Ahab inherited Naboth under the law of those executed by the kingdom,

this is what is written [there, I Kings 21:13], that the witnesses testified:

“

Naboth blessed God and the king,”

and they did not suffice with Naboth being killed merely because he blessed God, since they also wanted Ahab to take his vineyard under the law of those executed by the kingdom.

But according to the one who says

that those executed by the kingdom

their property belongs to the heirs,

and Ahab inherited Naboth under the ordinary law of inheritance,

why do I need

“

and the king”!?

Is it not sufficient that they testify that he blessed God alone, so that they would kill him and Ahab would inherit him?

And the Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning,

is it not also difficult according to your view: “

God”

why do I need it!?

Is it not sufficient that they testify that he cursed the king alone, so that they would kill him and Ahab would gain his vineyard?

Rather,

you are compelled to say that they testified this in order

to increase the anger,

to magnify his offense in the eyes of the judges, so that they would not murmur against Ahab that he killed him without wrongdoing and only for his own benefit.

So too,

according to my view, therefore they testified against him that he also cursed the king, in order

to increase the anger,

to magnify his offense.

And the Gemara analyzes:

Granted, according to the one who says: Their property belongs to the king, this is what is written [there, I Kings 2:28]: “

there”

“And Joab fled to the Tent of the Lord and grasped the horns of the altar”,

for he wanted to escape from Solomon, who would kill him in accordance with the command of his father David before his death.

And it is written [there, 30], that Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada to kill him: “And he said to him: So said the king, Come out [from the altar]. And he said:

‘

No

I will come out,

for here I shall die.’”

For Joab preferred to die a natural death rather than be killed by Solomon, so that his property would not pass to the king.

But according to the one who says: Their property belongs to the heirs, what difference does it make to him,

what difference is there for him through which death he dies, since in either case the property will remain only with his heirs?

And the Gemara answers: The entire difference was only

for temporary life.

For meanwhile, until Benaiah returned to Solomon to tell him Joab’s words and until he returned to him again, his execution would be delayed.

At the continuation of that verse it is stated: “

And Benaiah brought back the king the word, saying: Thus spoke Joab, and thus he answered me.”

And from the repetition of the words we learn that Joab said many things, yet we find that he said only “for here I shall die,” and no more?

Rather, this is what he

said to him

to Benaiah:

Go, say to him,

say to Solomon:

Do not do two things to this man.

Do not do two evils to me!

For David had cursed Joab at the time, when he killed Abner, and he now sent to Solomon:

If you kill him,

if you wish to kill me,

accept upon yourself the curse with which your father cursed me.

Accept upon yourself those curses with which your father cursed me.

And if not,

and if you do not wish to accept your father’s curses,

leave him, who is bound by the curse with which your father cursed me.

Leave me, and I will remain only with your father’s curses.

[there, 31] “

And the king said to him: Do as he has spoken. And he struck him, and buried him.”

Solomon agreed to accept upon himself the curses of his father David!

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: All

the

curses with which David cursed Joab

indeed

were fulfilled in the offspring of David,

because Solomon accepted them upon himself—

for this is how he cursed him [II Samuel 3:29]: “

May there not be cut off

[may there not cease]

from the house of Joab one with a discharge, and a leper, and one holding a spindle, and one falling by the sword, and one lacking bread”— “

One with a discharge”

was fulfilled

through Rehoboam, for it is written

[I Kings 12:18]: “

And King Rehoboam exerted himself to go up into the chariot to flee to Jerusalem.”

And it is written [Leviticus 15:9]: “

there”

And every vehicle upon which the man with the discharge rides shall become impure.” And we expound the gzera shava: “chariot” from “vehicle,” that Rehoboam also had a discharge. “

And we derive by a conclusion based on an identical expression, “chariot” from “vehicle,” that Rehoboam also had a discharge. “

A leper”

was fulfilled

through Uzziah:

For it is written [II Chronicles 26:16] concerning Uzziah: “

there”

And when he was strong, his heart grew haughty until destruction, and he acted treacherously against the Lord his God, and he entered the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense,”

despite the fact that he was not a koen.

And it is written [there, 19]: “

there”

And the leprosy shone upon his forehead.” “

One holding a spindle”

who leaned upon a staff because of illness in the legs, was fulfilled

through Asa.

For it is written [I Kings 15:23] concerning Asa: “

there”

But at the time of his old age he was ill in his feet.”

And Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For a foot disease had seized him.

That is the name of an illness of the legs.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Nahman, said to Rav Nahman: What is it like,

what is this illness like?

He said to him,

Rav Nahman:

Like a needle in living flesh.

And the Gemara asks:

From where did he know

this? From where did Rav Nahman know this? And the Gemara answers in three ways:

If you wish, say: He himself was concerned about it.

He himself felt this way when he became ill with this disease.

And if you wish, say: He had learned it from his teacher,

he received it in this manner from his teacher.

And if you wish, say,

it was revealed to him from Heaven, as it is stated [Psalms 25:14]: “

The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him, and His covenant, to make it known to them.” “

Falling by the sword”

was fulfilled

through Josiah.

For it is written [II Chronicles 35:23]: “

there”

And the shooters shot at King Josiah.”

And Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: They made his entire body

punctured by arrows

like a sieve. “

And lacking bread”

was fulfilled

through Jeconiah.

For it is written [II Kings 25:30]: “

there”

And his allowance, a continual allowance, was given to him,”

by the king of Babylon, and he did not have food of his own.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: This is what people say: