Answer: It is better to learn Meshamshim (things used for a Mes) from Meshamshim (of idolatry), and not from Eglah Arufah, which is forbidden due to itself.

Question: Why doesn't Abaye learn from idolatry?

Answer: We learn something proper (making shrouds for a Mes) from something proper (Eglah Arufah), and not from idolatry, which is forbidden. (Such designation is less meaningful. Perhaps he will not serve it.)

Question (against Rava - Mishnah): If a kerchief was Tamei Medras (it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, because she often sits on it); and it was given to be used as a cover on a Sefer Torah, it is no longer Tamei Medras, but it is Tamei (because it 'touched' itself at the moment its status changed, through designation).

Answer: The case is, it was wrapped on the Sefer Torah.

Question: Why must it be wrapped on the Sefer Torah?

(Rav Chisda): If a cloth was designated and used to wrap Tefilin, one may not wrap coins in it;

If it was designated but not yet used to wrap Tefilin, or used but not designated, one may wrap coins in it.

According to Abaye, who says that designation takes effect, it all depends on designation:

If it was designated, even if it was not yet used for Tefilin, one may not wrap coins in it;

If it was not designated, even if it was used for Tefilin, one may wrap coins in it.

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If a Nefesh (a tomb above ground) was built for a living person, it is permitted;

If a layer of stones was added for his sake after he died, it is forbidden.

Answer: It is forbidden after the Mes was put inside.

Question: If so, even if a layer of stones was not added, it is forbidden!

Answer: If a layer of stones was added, it is forbidden even after the Mes is removed.

(Rafram bar Papa): If one recognizes the layer of stones added, he may remove it, and the Nefesh is permitted (after the Mes is removed).

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If one dug a grave for his father and buried him elsewhere, no one else may be buried in the first grave.

Answer: There it is forbidden due to the honor of his father.

Support (end of the Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even if he quarried rocks for a grave for his father and buried him elsewhere, he may not use the rocks to bury anyone else.

Surely, this is due to the honor of his father;

No one says that such a preliminary stage of designation has any effect. This is like spinning thread to be woven to make shrouds!

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): One may benefit from a new grave;

If a Nefel was put inside, one may not benefit from it.

Inference: Before putting a Nefel inside, it is permitted!

Answer: No, even before putting a Nefel inside, it is forbidden;

The Tana comes to argues with R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a Nefel does not forbid a grave (permanently, i.e. even after it is removed).

Question (against Abaye - Mishnah): If money was collected to bury the dead, and not all was needed, the extra is used for people who will die later. If money was collected for one Mes and not all is needed, the extra is given to his heirs. (They may benefit from it. Designation does not forbid it!)

Answer: The case is, they collected before he died.

Question (Mishnah): If money was collected to bury the dead, and not all was needed, the extra is used for people who will die later. If money was collected for one Mes and not all is needed, the extra is given to his heirs.

(Beraisa): If money was collected to bury the dead in general (Mesei Mitzvah or Mesim from poor families), the extra is used for people who will die later;

If money was collected for a particular Mes and not all is needed, the extra is given to his heirs. (The designation had no effect.)

Counter-question (Seifa - R. Meir): The heirs may not use the money. It is left until Eliyahu comes;

R. Nasan says, we use it to build another layer on his grave, or to sprinkle wine in front of his coffin.

Both Abaye and Rava explain according to their reasoning.

NOTE: (Seemingly, Chachamim hold like Rava, and R. Meir and R. Nasan hold like Abaye.)

Answer #1 (for Abaye): All agree that designation takes effect. Chachamim say that designation applies only to the amount needed for the Mes. R. Meir is unsure (therefore, we leave it until Eliyahu comes). R. Nasan is sure that it applies to everything collected (therefore, we use it for the Mes).

Answer #2 (for Rava): All agree that designation has no effect. Chachamim say that one (when alive) pardons his disgrace (that people collect for his burial) in order to help his heirs (they should keep the extra money). R. Meir is unsure. R. Nasan is sure that he does not pardon.

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): If the parents of the Mes were throwing clothes on the Mes (more than is needed), it is a Mitzvah to remove them (so they will not become forbidden. This shows that they are not yet forbidden!)

Answer: That is different, for they throw only due to grief (therefore, it is not designation).

Question (end of the Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If the clothes touched the bed on which the Mes rests, they are forbidden (even though they threw from grief)!

Answer (Ula): The case is, the bed will be buried with the Mes. R. Shimon ben Gamliel decrees to forbid what touches the Mes, lest people think that shrouds are permitted.

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): If a bag was made to hold Tefilin, one may not put coins in it;

If it was not made for Tefilin but Tefilin were put in it, one may put coins in it.

Answer: The Reisha should say 'if it was made for Tefilin and Tefilin were put in, one may not put coins in it (like Rav Chisda's teaching above).

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): If Reuven told a craftsman 'make me a cover for a Sefer Torah (or for Tefilin)', he may use it for Chulin only until he uses it for Kodesh. Afterwards, it is forbidden.

Answer: Tana'im argue about designation.

(Beraisa): If (the Batim of) Tefilin were covered with gold or hide of a Tamei animal, they are Pasul;

If they were covered with hide of a Tahor animal, they are Kosher, even if the hide was not tanned Lishmah (for the sake of Tefilin);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if the hide was not tanned Lishmah, they are Pasul.

NOTE: (Rashi - Chachamim do not require Lishmah, for they say that designation is meaningless. R. Shimon requires it, for he says that designation takes effect. R. Tam - Chachamim say that designation takes effect, therefore, this suffices in place of Lishmah. R. Shimon says that designation has no effect, therefore he requires Lishmah.)

Question (Ravina (to Rava)): You argue with Abaye about shrouds made for a particular Mes. Is there a place where they (do not have shrouds ready in advance, they) leave a Mes naked until they make shrouds?!

Answer (Rava): Yes, they do so in Herpanya.

(Mereimar): The Halachah follows Abaye.

(Rabanan): The Halachah follows Rava.

The Halachah follows Rava.

(Beraisa): The property of people killed by the (Yisrael) king (for rebelling against him) belongs to the king;

The property of people killed by Beis Din belongs to the heirs.

R. Yehudah says, also the property of people killed by the king belongs to the heirs.

Chachamim: It says "b'Cherem Navos Asher Yorad (Achav) Sham Lerishto"! (Achav hired false witnesses to say that Navos cursed him, and took Navos' property.)

R. Yehudah: Achav was his nephew. He was the heir.

Chachamim: Navos had many sons (they were his heirs)!

R. Yehudah: Achav killed also them - "Demei Navos v'Es Demei Vanav Ra'isi."

Chachamim: That refers to other children that Navos was destined to have.

Question: According to Chachamim, we understand "Berach Navos Elokim va'Melech" - the witnesses testified that he cursed the king, in order that Achav would be entitled to his property;

However, according to R. Yehudah, in any case Achav would not inherit it. It would have sufficed to testify that he blasphemed!

Counter-question: Also according to Chachamim, why did they testify that he blasphemed? It would have sufficed to testify that he cursed the king! (A Mored b'Malchus is killed.)

Answer to both questions: They added to the story to give more justification to kill him.

Question: According to Chachamim, we understand "va'Yanas Yo'av El Ohel Hash-m va'Yachazek b'Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach... Ki Fo Amus" (he did not want to be judged by Shlomo, for then Shlomo would get his property);

However, according to R. Yehudah, in any case his heirs would inherit it. What difference would it make who judges him?

Answer: He wanted (a small) additional time to live (until Shlomo would hear and command to take him).

"Ko Diber Yo'av v'Cho Anani" - Yo'av told Shlomo 'do not do inflict a second punishment upon me. If you will kill me, accept upon yourself the curse that David cursed me. If you do not accept the curse upon yourself, do not kill me.'

(Rav Yehudah): "Ase Ka'asher Diber u'Fega Bo u'Kvarto" - all David's curses ("Al Yikares mi'Beis Yo'av Zav u'Metzora u'Machazik ba'Pelech v'Nofel ba'Cherev va'Chasar Lachem") came upon David's descendants:

Rechav'am was a Zav. It says "Rechav'am His'ametz La'alos ba'Merkavah", just like "ha'Merkav Asher Yirkav Alav ha'Zav Yitma";

Uziyahu was a Metzora - "Veha'Tzara'as Zorcha v'Mitzcho";

Asa needed a cane - "l'Es Ziknaso Chalah Es Raglav."

(Rav Yehudah): He was stricken by Podagra (a foot sickness).

Question (Mar Zutra breih d'Rav Nachman): What is it like?

(Rav Nachman): It feels like a needle in the skin.

Question: How did Rav Nachman know?

Answer #1: He himself suffered from this.

Answer #2: He had a tradition from his Rebbi.

Answer #3: "Sod Hash-m li'Re'av" (Hash-m reveals secrets to people who fear Him).

Yoshiyahu was killed by the sword - "va'Yoru ha'Yorim la'Melech Yoshiyahu";

(Rav Yehudah): They shot so many arrows into him that he resembled a sieve.

Yechonyah lacked bread - "va'Aruchaso Aruchas Tamid Nitnah Lo" (but before this, he lacked food).

(Rav Yehudah): It is better to be cursed (without reason) than to curse. (All David's curses came back upon his descendants).