Sanhedrin 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves:

There

this is not an act of designation at all, because they do this only

because of their sorrow

out of grief.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, this is what is taught afterward: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said

that it is possible to save the garments thrown upon him? When they were

not touching the bier, but

if they

touched the bier, they are forbidden.

And if they act only out of grief, why should the garments become forbidden by touching the bier?

And the Gemara resolves:

Ulla explained:

This is referring

to a bier that is buried with him

and the garments touched the bier on which he was carried for burial, and they were accustomed to bury the bier with him as well. Therefore, although strictly speaking we should not have forbidden garments that touched the bier, nevertheless the Sages issued a decree concerning them because

they might be confused with the shrouds of the dead,

as they resemble the shrouds in which the dead person is dressed when he lies on this bier. If we permit these garments, people may come to permit use of the shrouds of the dead as well.

But if the garments had touched only the bier upon which the dead person was lying, we would not have issued a decree concerning them because of the shrouds of the dead, since in that case the dead person was not yet dressed in shrouds, and there would be no concern that the two would be confused.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

A pouch made to place tefillin in may not be used to place money in.

But if he

placed tefillin in it

only occasionally,

he may place money in it.

Thus, even if he has not yet placed tefillin inside the pouch, it is already rendered forbidden merely by designation; and this is difficult for Rava, who says that designation is not significant?

And the Gemara resolves:

Say

that the beraita means that specifically if he

made it and

also

placed tefillin in it, he may not place money in it,

but through its manufacture alone it does not become forbidden, because designation is not significant.

Although this is obvious, the beraita comes to teach us the latter clause: through placing tefillin in the pouch alone, it does not become forbidden.

In accordance with the view of Rav Hisda,

who said that if one placed tefillin in a pouch but did not designate it for that purpose, he may place money in it.

Come and hear:

It was taught in a beraita:

If one said to a craftsman: Make me a case for a scroll,

a sheath for a Torah scroll,

or a case for tefillin,

before he used them for a sacred purpose, he may use them for an ordinary purpose.

But if he has already

used them for a sacred purpose, he may not use them for an ordinary purpose.

It is explicit here that designation alone does not render an item forbidden until it is actually used for a sacred purpose; and this is difficult for Abaye?

And the Gemara resolves:

It is a dispute between tanna’im.

The matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im as to whether designation is significant or not. And Abaye will hold in accordance with the tanna who maintains that designation is significant.

As it was taught in a beraita:

Tefillin that

he plated with gold,

that he made the compartments of gold,

or covered them

with a patch, making the compartments from

the hide of an impure animal,

they are

invalid.

This is because the compartments must be made from the hide of a pure animal permitted for consumption, as it is stated in the passage concerning tefillin: “So that the teaching of the Lord will be in your mouth.” From the words “in your mouth” they derive that it must be made from a substance permitted to 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. This is because designation is not significant, and consequently it does not matter whether he processed the hide for its sake or not, since processing the hide is merely a form of designation.

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

the hide

for their sake,

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

Thus, tanna’im disagreed regarding this matter of whether designation is significant.

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

Is such a situation realistically possible, that the dead person would lie in disgrace while they waited until a garment could be woven for him, such that you and Abaye are disputing a case of weaving a garment for the dead, an option that does not actually occur?

He said to him

Rava:

Yes!

Such a situation does indeed exist,

such as the dead of Harpanya,

the dead of a place called Harpanya, whose inhabitants became impoverished, and only after death would they collect money and weave inexpensive shrouds for them.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Abaye

who says that designation is significant.

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

who says that designation is not significant.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rava!

The Sages taught: Those executed by the monarchy,

who were sentenced to death by the kings of Israel because they rebelled against him, as it is stated concerning Joshua: “Any man who rebels against your command … 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 their heirs,

the heirs of the executed person.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even those executed by the monarchy, their property belongs to their heirs.

They said to him,

the Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda:

But it has already been stated

that after Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, king of Israel, arranged for Naboth to be killed because he refused to sell his vineyard to Ahab, doing so through false witnesses who testified that Naboth had cursed King Ahab, God said to Elijah: “Arise, go down to meet Ahab, king of Israel, who is in Samaria;

behold, he is in Naboth’s vineyard, where he has gone down to inherit it.”

From the fact that it says “to inherit it,” it follows that this was a complete inheritance, and that Ahab lawfully took Naboth’s vineyard because the property of those executed by the monarchy belongs to the king?

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehuda: Naboth

was the son of Ahab’s paternal uncle

and

was fit to inherit him,

Ahab. Therefore, he inherited his vineyard, not because Naboth was one executed by the monarchy.

They said to him,

the Sages:

But Naboth had many sons,

and they had precedence over Ahab in inheritance; why, then, did Ahab inherit it?

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehuda:

He killed him and his sons,

Ahab did, and only he remained as heir.

As it is stated

there: “Regarding Ahab:

If I have not seen the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons,”

which indicates that he killed his sons as well.

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 descend from him,

who are considered as though he had killed them.

And the Gemara considers:

Granted, according to the one who says

that those executed by the monarchy,

their property belongs to the king,

and Ahab inherited Naboth by virtue of his being executed by the monarchy,

this is why it is written

that the witnesses testified:

“Naboth cursed God and the king,”

and they were not satisfied that Naboth be killed merely because he cursed God, since they also wanted Ahab to take his vineyard under the law governing those executed by the monarchy.

But according to the one who says

that those executed by the monarchy,

their property belongs to their heirs,

and Ahab inherited Naboth through ordinary inheritance,

why do I need

“

“and the king”?

Would it not have been sufficient for them to testify that he cursed God alone, so that he would be killed and Ahab would inherit his vineyard?

And the Gemara resolves:

And according to your reasoning,

the same difficulty applies to your view:

“God”

why do I need it!?

Would it not have been sufficient for them to testify that he cursed the king alone, so that he would be killed and Ahab would acquire his vineyard?

Rather,

you must say that they testified in this way in order

to increase the anger,

to magnify his offense in the eyes of the judges, so that they would not speak against Ahab for having killed him without cause and merely for his own benefit.

The same applies here:

according to my view, they testified that he had also cursed the king in order

to increase the anger,

to magnify his offense.

And the Gemara considers:

Granted, according to the one who says: Their property belongs to the king, this is why it is written

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

as he sought to escape from Solomon, who was going to kill him in accordance with the command of his father David before David’s death.

And it is written

there 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:

there [verse 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 not come out,

for here I shall die.”

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 their heirs, what difference does it make to him

how he dies, since in either event the property will remain only for his heirs?

And the Gemara resolves: The only difference was

for a short while of life.

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

Later in that same verse it says:

“And Benaiah returned to the king, saying: So spoke Joab and so he answered me.”

From the repetition of the wording we learn that Joab said many things; yet we do not find that he said anything except “For here I shall die,” and no more.

Rather, this is what he

said to him,

to Benaiah:

Go, say to him,

tell 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 Joab killed Abner, and he now sent word to Solomon:

If you kill him,

if you wish to kill me,

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

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

But if not,

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

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

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

There:

“And the king said to him: Do as he has spoken, and strike him and bury him.”

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: All

the

curses with which David cursed Joab

indeed

were fulfilled in the descendants of David,

because Solomon accepted them upon himself—

for this is how he cursed him:

“May there not be cut off

from the house of Joab

one who has a discharge, or a leper, or one who holds a spindle, or one who falls by the sword, or one who lacks bread.”

“One who has a discharge”

was fulfilled

through Rehoboam, as it is written:

“

And King Rehoboam exerted himself to mount the chariot in order to flee to Jerusalem.”

And it is written:

“

And every vehicle upon which the person with the discharge rides shall become impure.”

And we derive through a gzera shava from “chariot” and “vehicle” that Rehoboam also had a discharge.

“A leper”

was fulfilled

through Uzziah:

As it is written

concerning Uzziah:

“But when he became strong, his heart became arrogant to his destruction, and he acted treacherously against the Lord his God and entered the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the incense altar,”

although he was not a koen.

And it is written:

“

And the leprosy shone forth upon his forehead.”

“One who holds a spindle”

who leaned on a staff because of an illness in his legs, was fulfilled

through Asa.

As it is written

concerning Asa:

“Only in the time of his old age he became ill in his legs.”

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: He was afflicted with podagra.

A disease of the legs.

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

this illness?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

Like a needle in living flesh.

And the Gemara asks:

From where did he know

this? From where did Rav Naḥman know this? The Gemara answers in three ways:

If you wish, say: He himself had felt it.

He himself had experienced this sensation when he was afflicted with this illness.

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

This is what he had received from his teacher.

And if you wish, say:

It was revealed to him from Heaven, as it is stated:

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

“One who falls by the sword”

was fulfilled

through Josiah.

As it is written

“

And the archers shot at King Josiah.”

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They made his entire body

pierced by arrows

like a sieve.

“And one who lacks bread”

was fulfilled

through Jeconiah.

As it is written:

“

And his allowance was a regular allowance given to him”

by the king of Babylonia, and he had nothing of his own to eat.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is what people say: