Sanhedrin

(Mnemonic: Veil; Tomb; Hewn. The craftsman's bag.) An objection is raised: 'If a veil, which is unclean  through Midras,  is designated [as a cover] for the Book [of the law], it is purified from [the uncleanness of] Midras,  yet may become unclean by direct contact [with the dead]'?  — Say thus: If it was designated for and wrapped round [the Book].  But why are both 'designation' and 'wrapping' necessary?  — This is in accordance with R. Hisda, who said: If a cloth was assigned for wrapping Tefillin therein, and was so used, one may not tie up coins in it. If it was assigned, but not used so, or vice versa,  one may tie up coins in it.  But on Abaye's view, viz., that [mere] designation is a material act; if one had assigned the cloth [for the purpose of wrapping up his Tefillin], even though he did not do so, or if he wrapped them in it, and also assigned it [for that purpose], it is so [i.e., the prohibition holds good]; but if he had not assigned it, it is not [forbidden]. Come and hear! 'A tomb  built for a man still alive, may be used.If, however, one added a single row of stones for a dead person,  no [other] use may be made thereof'?  — This deals with a case where the corpse had actually been buried there. If so why [teach] particularly 'if one added [etc.]'; even if not, the law would have been the same! — This is only necessary [to teach that the prohibition remains] even if the body has [subsequently] been removed. Rafram R. Papa said In R. Hisda's name: If he recognizes that [additional row] he may remove it and the tomb becomes again permissible. Come and hear! 'If one hews a grave for his [dead] father and then goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never be buried therein'?  — Here it is on account of his father's honour.  That too stands to reason. For the second clause teaches: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said; Even if one hews stones  [for a tomb] for his father, but goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may never employ them for his own grave.  Now, if you agree that it is out of respect for his father, it is correct. But if you say that it is because of designation, does any one maintain that yarn spun for weaving [a shroud is forbidden]? Come and hear! A fresh grave may be used. But if an abortion has been laid therein, it is forbidden for use,  Thus, it is so only if it has actually been laid therein, but not otherwise!  — The same law holds good even if it [the abortion] was not laid therein;  and it [the statement, 'if it has been laid therein'] is [only] intended to exclude the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who maintains: Abortions take no possession of their graves.  He therefore teaches us [otherwise]. Come and hear! 'The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead,  but the surplus [of a collection] for a [particular] deceased person belongs to his heirs'?  — This refers to a case [where the money was] collected during [the deceased's] lifetime. But [the Tanna] did not teach thus? For we learnt: The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead, but the surplus [of a collection] for a [particular] deceased person belongs to his heirs. Now, it was taught thereon: How so? If it was collected for the dead in general that is where we rule; The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other] dead, but if it was collected for a particular dead person, that is where we rule, The surplus [of a collection] for a deceased belongs to his heirs! — But according to your view,  consider the second section: R. Meir said: It must remain intact until Elijah comes;  R. Nathan ruled: It is to be expended for a monument on his grave, or sprinkling [aromatic wine] before his bier.  But Abaye reconciles them  in accordance with his view, and Raba in accordance with his view.  'Abaye reconciles them in accordance with his view;' [thus;] all agree that designation is a material act. Now, the first Tanna holds that he [the dead] takes possession  only of as much as he needs, and not of the surplus;  R. Meir, however, is doubtful whether he takes possession [of the surplus] or not: consequently it must remain intact until Elijah comes; whereas R. Nathan holds that he certainly takes possession [even of the surplus]; hence it is to be employed for a monument on his grave. 'And Raba in accordance with his view;' [thus:] all agree that assignment is not a material act.  Now, the first Tanna maintains: Though they humiliated him,  he forgives his humiliation for his heirs' sake,  R. Meir, however, is doubtful whether he forgives it or not; therefore it must remain intact etc.; whilst R. Nathan takes the definite view that he does not forgive it, therefore the surplus must be expended on a monument for his grave or for sprinkling [aromatic wine] before his bier. Come and hear! If his father and mother are throwing garments upon him,  it is the duty of others to save them.