6) click for question
(a) The Beraisa rules that if the deceased's parents are throwing clothes on to the bed on which their dead son is lying - it is a Mitzvah for anyone who can, to save them.
(b) According to Abaye, the clothes do not become forbidden because of Hazmanah - since it is clear that the parents are only doing this because they are totally distraught, and not because they really want the clothes to become forbidden.
(c) In view of the Seifa, which renders clothes that touched the coffin Asur be'Hana'ah, we establish the Beraisa - by the coffin in which the Meis is being buried, and where the Rabbanan decreed on account of the shrouds, which people might come to think are also permitted.
7) click for question
(a) We query Rava from a Beraisa which permits a bag that was once used for Tefilin, to be used for money. The Reisha - forbids deriving benefit from a bag that was made to hold Tefilin ('As'o Lehani'ach bo Tefilin, Asur Lehani'ach bo Ma'os').
(b) Rava amends this Beraisa to read - 'As'o ve'Hini'ach bo Tefilin, ... '.
(c) Abaye reconciles his opinion with another Beraisa which permits using a bag that was specifically commissioned to be made as a cover for a Seifer-Torah or to hold Tefilin, until it is actually used - by establishing a Machlokes Tana'im in this regard, as we shall now see.
8) click for question
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa declares Pasul, Tefilin that one overlaid with gold or that one covered with the skin of a non-Kasher animal - based on the Pasuk in Bo "Lema'an Tih'yeh Toras Hash-m be'Ficha" (from which we Darshen 'min ha'Mutar be'Ficha' [that they must be made from a species that can be eaten).
(b) The reason that ...
1. ... he permits the skin of a Kasher animal even if it was not tanned for the sake of the Mitzvah is - because he holds 'Hazmanah La'v Milsa Hi' (in which case, it makes no difference how the skins are prepared).
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with this latter ruling, is - because he holds 'Hazmanah Milsa Hi' ...
(c) ... and it is his opinion that Abaye follows.
(d) When Ravina asked Rava how it was feasible for someone to die without shrouds having been made for him in advance, in order to bury him as quickly as possible, the latter replied 'K'gon Shichvi de'Harpanya' - (i.e. like the dead of Harpanya', who were very poor and who could not afford them in their lifetime).
(e) Mereimar ruled like Abaye (regarding Hazmanah), the Rabbanan, like Rava. The Halachah is - like Rava.
9) click for question
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the property of someone killed by the king goes to the king, whereas that of someone killed by Beis-Din goes to his heirs. According to Rebbi Yehudah - both go to his heirs.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah counters the Rabbanan's ...
1. ... proof from Achav, who killed Navos for his vineyard - with the argument that since he was his first cousin, he was next of kin anyway.
2. ... counter-argument that Navos had many children - by citing the Pasuk "Im Lo es D'mei Navos ve'es D'mei Banav Ra'isi", which he interprets to mean that Achav had Navos' children put to death too.
(c) According to the Rabbanan, this Pasuk refers (not to children that he already had, but) - to children who would have been born to him, had Achav not murdered him.
1. Rebbi Yehudah explains the need for the Navi to add the word "u'Melech" (in the Pasuk "Barech Navos Elokim u'Melech"- to make the people more angry with Navos, to deflect their anger from him.
2. The Rabbanan explain the need for the Navi to add the word "Elokim" (in the same Pasuk) - for exactly the same reason.
10) click for question
(a) Yo'av ran into the Azarah and held on to the Mizbe'ach, according to ...
1. ... the Rabbanan - to avoid being taken before the king and killed as a Mored be'Malchus, in which case his property would have gone to David, and not to his heirs. He therefore opted to be killed by Beis-Din.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - in order to buy time, whilst Benayahu went to the king to present his argument to Shlomoh Hamelech.
(b) Yo'av instructed Benayahu ben Yehoyada, whom Shlomoh had sent to kill him, to relay to the King - that he couldn't have it both ways; either he would leave him with the curses, or he would kill him and accepts the curses on his own descendants.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav points out how, now that Shlomoh chose to kill him, all the curses that David had placed on Yo'av, materialized on his own descendants, inasmuch as ...
1. ... Rechavam - was a Zav ...
2. ... Uziyah - contracted Tzara'as
3. ... Asa - became lame.
4. ... Yoshiyahu - was killed by the enemy (though not exactly by the sword, as we shall see).
5. ... Yechonyah - lacked bread ...
(d) ... in that he did not have his own income, but was fed each day, at the table of Evyl Merodach (King of Bavel).
11) click for question
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav translates the lameness of Asa as 'Padgera'. Rav Nachman described the feeling to his son Mar Zutra as - like a needle pricking the flesh.
(b) He may have known about it because he himself went through the experience. He may also have learned it from his Rebbe. Alternatively, he knew about it - through ''Sod Hash-m li'Yere'av" (Hash-m reveals His secrets to those who fear Him).
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav comments that when Par'oh Nechei's archers killed Yashiyah - they riddled his body with three hundred arrows.
(d) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav commented on the episode with Shlomoh and Yo'av 'Tehei Luta ve'Al Tehei Lata' - he meant that it is (sometimes) better to be cursed than to curse others, because an undeserved curse rebounds on oneself (as it did with David's descendents).
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Sanhedrin