Chizkiyah dragged his father's bones around the town on a bed of ropes - to attain a Kaparah for his father Achaz (who was one of the worst Kings in our history).

We learn from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Nivzeh be'Einav Nim'as" that if a person does not have self-respect he does deserve the respect of others. Two other reasons as to why Chizkiyahu was willing to forego the honor of his father are - a. because, based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or", one is only required to honor someone who behaves like a Yisrael ('be'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha') and b. because he was willing to forego in order to create a Kidush Hash-m (to counter the Chilul Hash-m that his father had perpetrated).

Even assuming that the way one treats a Meis is a matter of Kavod ha'Chayim, Chizkiyah was justified in doing what he did - because the people themselves would have wanted their king to have a Kaparah.

Rebbi died in Tzipori - but he was buried in Beis-She'arim, far from Tzipori.

He issued a decree - that on the way to his burial, they should only eulogize him in the large towns, but not in the villages.

We reconcile this with the possibility that Hesped is a matter of Kavod ha'Chayim - by pointing out that the people's Kavod would be enhanced by doing so, since now the villagers would all travel to the towns to hear the Hespedim.

The Beraisa rules that someone who leaves a Meis overnight 'li'Chevodo', to bring the coffin and shrouds, has not transgressed the La'av of 'Lo Salin'.

To refute the proof from here that Kevurah is Kavod ha'Meis - we interpret 'li'Chevodo' with reference to the Kavod of the relative.

Nevertheless, even assuming that Kevurah is Kavod ha'Meis, the relative has ythe right to delay the burial to enhance his own Kavod - because he did not delay the burial in a degrading manner, as "Lo Salin" (which means 'Do not leave hanging') implies, but rather for reasons of respectability.

Rebbi Nasan says in a Beraisa that if a Meis is not eulogized or buried, or whose bones are dragged away by a wild animal - it is a good sign for the Meis, as it constitutes a Kaparah for his sins.

The fourth item he adds to the list is - if it rains on his coffin during the burial.

We finally prove from Rebbi Nasan - that Hesped is Kavod ha'Meis.

The Pasuk in Melachim relates to an incident where the people who were burying a Meis spotted a group of bandits - and threw the body into what turned out to be the grave of the Navi Elisha and fled. The moment his bones touched those of the Navi, the dead man got up and walked away.

That miracle occurred on the merit of - Elisha, so that he should not be buried next to a Rasha.

Rebbi Acha bar Chanina learns from this episode that - one may not bury a Rasha in the vicinity of a Tzadik.

We know that the miracle did occur merely in order to fulfill Elisha's request of his Rebbe, Eliyahu "vi'Yehi Na Shenayim Be'Ruchacha" - because the Pasuk relates how, no sooner had the dead man left the vicinity of Elisha's grave than he dropped dead.

Seeing as, besides the above incident, Elisha brought only one person back to life, (the son of the Shunamis) like Eliyahu, Rebbi Yochanan explains the fulfillment of Elisha's request - by comparing the curing of Na'aman's Tzara'as to reviving him from the dead ...

... which we prove from the the Pasuk in Be'ha'aloshca (in connection with Miriam's Tzara'as) "Al Na T'hi ka'Meis" - which specifically compares Tzara'as to death.

Despite the fact that one may not even bury a big Rasha in the vicinity of a small one, as we see from our Mishnah, they did not arrange four grave-yards, one for each of the four Chayvei Misah - because they had a tradition, 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', that there had to be two grave-yards, as our Mishnah explains.

Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone who ate Cheilev be'Shogeg and designated his Korban, converted out (Heimir Daso) and came back - his Korban, which was rejected whilst he was a Mumar, remains rejected.

And Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan says the same - about someone who ate Cheilev be'Shogeg and designated his Korban, became insane (Nishtateh) and recovered.

Having taught us the case of ...

... 'Heimir Daso', Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless found it necessary to add the case of 'Nishtateh' - where the Korban might have remained Kasher, seeing as his insanity was not of his making.

... 'Nishtateh', he found it necessary to add the case of 'Heimir Daso' - where the Korban might have remained Kasher, seeing as his situation was in his hands to reverse.

We learn from the Pasuk (in Vayikra, in connection with Korbanos) ...

... "me'Am ha'Aretz - that a Mumar is disqualified from bringing a Korban.

... "li'Retzono" - that someone who is insane is disqualified, too.

The Mishnah in Cheilek rules that Kodshei Mizbe'ach that are found in an Ir ha'Nidachas must die (though they are not burned together with everything else). Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - however must be redeemed.

Rav Yosef tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's two statements from the first of these two Halachos - because it is clear from the fact that the condemned men's death does not atone for their sin, in which case we will apply the principle 'Ho'il Ve'Nidchu, Yidachu' (once a Korban has been rejected it remains rejected).

Abaye refutes this proof however, on the grounds that - since they died without Teshuvah, their death is not a Kaparah. Consequently, there is no reason to remove the prohibition.

And he proves this from a statement of Rav Sh'mayah, who Darshened from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with a Kohen) "le'Nefesh Lo Yitama be'Amav, Ki im li'Sh'eiro ... " that - only people who did not deviate from the ways of the community (be'Oseh Ma'aseh Amo) are included in the list of those for whom a Kohen is permitted to make himself Tamei.

Rava queries Abaye - by differentiating between Meis mi'Toch Rish'o, who is indeed precluded, and Neherag mi'Toch Rish'o, who receives a Kaparah.

And he proves his point from the Pasuk "Mizmor le'Asaf ... Nasnu es Nivlas Avadecha Ma'achal le'Of ha'Shamayim, B'sar Chasidecha le'Chayso Aretz". Now if "Chasidecha" is meant literally, to whom is the Pasuk referring when it mentions "Avadecha", if not those who were Chayav Misah and whom the Pasuk refers to as 'Your servants, irrespective of whether they did Teshuvah or not?

Abaye counters Rava's proof however, by establishing the case in Tehilim by Harugei Malchus (who are killed at the hand of Nochrim), but does not include Harugei Beis-Din, who are killed according to Din Torah, but who did not do Teshuvah. Their death, he maintains, is certainly not a Kaparah (unless they do Teshuvah).

And he tries to prove his point from our Mishnah 'Lo Hayu Kovrin oso be'Kivros Avosav' - implying that death at the hand of Beis-Din is not a Kaparah for a sinner.

But we counter Abaye's proof by explaining that - even if in fact, it is a Kaparah (in which case the reason by Ir Ha'Nidachas is indeed 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu Yidachu', like Rav Yosef contended), that is only on condition that he is not subsequently buried in his ancestral burial-ground.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah asks from our Mishnah 'Lo hayu Mis'ablin Ela Mis'onenin, that, if Misas Beis-Din is indeed a Kaparah, why should the relatives not then mourn his death ... '.

And we answer that the Kaparah is not complete until the body has decomposed, and we prove this from the continuation of the Mishnah - 'Nis'achel ha'Basar, Melaktin es ha'Atzamos ve'Kovrin osan bi'Mekoman'.

Rav Ashi disagrees. According to him ...

... the Aveilus begins - as soon as the lid is placed on the coffin (after the burial [though no-one disputes this]).

... the Kaparah takes effect - as soon as the pains of the grave begin.

The relatives do not need to start mourning after the pains of the grave begin - because of 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu Yidachu'.

Nevertheless, we need to wait for the body to decompose before re-burying it in its ancestral graveyard - because, due to its putrid odor, it is impossible to remove a decaying body from the grave prior to that.

In spite of the principle 'Ho'il ve'Nidchu ... ', the Mishnah in Mo'ed Katan obligates someone who did not begin the Shiv'ah before Yom-Tov, to sit after Yom-Tov - because the Din of Aveilus is not completely Bateil on Yom-Tov, inasmuch as people who visit the Aveil are sill obligated to comfort him.

People were taking earth from Rav's grave - to use as a cure for a first-day fever.

The problem with that is that based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" (by Miriam's death) and "ve'Arfu Sham es ha'Eglah" from Eglah Arufah - a grave is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Shmuel nevertheless condoned their actions, based on the Pasuk in Melachim (in connection with the destruction of idolatry) "va'Yashlech es Afarah al Kever b'nei ha'Am". We learn from ...

... there that - a grave that is attached, like Avodah-Zarah, does not become Asur be'Ha'ana'ah.

... the Pasuk " ... asher Atem Yorshim es Eloheihem, al he'Harim ha'Ramim ha'Ramim" - that Avodah-Zarah that is attached (a mountain) does not become Asur be'Hana'ah.

The Beraisa - forbids someone to be buried in a grave that someone originally dug to bury his father, but which remained empty, because he buried him somewhere else.

Assuming that this extends to a grave that he dug for anybody else too, we reconcile this with Shmuel's previous ruling - by establishing it by a Kever shel Binyan (a grave that is built above the ground) which has a Din of Talush [detached], and which like Avodah-Zarah, is Asur be'Hana'ah).

The Beraisa rules that a new grave - one that has been dug S'tam should it be needed, and not for anyone in particular - is Mutar be'Hana'ah.

To reconcile the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Hitil Bah Nefel, Asur be'Hana'ah' with Shmuel's previous ruling - we establish it too, by a Kever shel Binyan (as we did the previous Beraisa).

The Beraisa (which we will also establish by a Kever shel Binyan), discusses three graves 'Kever ha'Nimtza', ' Kever ha'Yadu'a' and 'Kever ha'Mazik es ha'Rabim'. A 'Kever ha'Nimtza' is a grave that is found to have a Meis buried in it without the owner's consent - whereas a 'Kever ha'Yadu'a' is one in which a Meis is buried with the owner's consent.

The Tana rules with regard to Kever ha'Nimtza 'Mutar li'Fenoso, Mekomo Tahor and Mutar be'Hana'ah'. We assume that the Meis concerned is not a Meis Mitzvah (who must be buried wherever he is found) - because if he had been, there would have been 'Kol' to that effect (word would have spread that a Meis Mitzvah was buried there).

With regard to a Kever ha'Yadu'a, the Tana rules - 'Asur li'Fenoso, Mekomo Tamei ve'Asur be'Hana'ah'.

The latter grave remains Tamei even after the body has been removed - on the basis of a Takanas Chachamim, to discourage people from removing the body to re-inter it elsewhere.

The third grave discussed by the Beraisa ('Kever ha'Mazik es ha'Rabim') is one that causes passers-by damage (by making them Tamei or by preventing them from passing). On the one hand, it is ...

... not Metamei once the corpse has been removed - because, due to the damage that the Meis causes, the Chachamim permit moving him Lechatchilah, in which case the Takanas Chachamim is not applicable.

... on the other hand, it is Asur be'Hana'ah - because that is not a Takanas Chachamim, but a Torah-law.

Abaye renders shrouds that have been woven on behalf of a Meis, Asur be'Hana'ah - because he holds 'Hazmanah Milsa hi' (designation is considered as if the article has actually been used).

On the one hand ...

... Abaye learns this from Eglah Arufah - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" "Sham" (which we cited earlier, and which becomes Asur be'Hana'ah the moment it is designated); whereas on the other ...

... Rava learns that the shrouds are Mutar be'Hana'ah from Avodas-Kochavim (a house or an ox that one designated for Avodah-Zarah) - via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" from " ... asher Avdu Sham ha'Goyim" (which remains Mutar be'Hana'ah until it is actually worshipped, even though it has been designated)

The reason that ...

... Rava declines to learn that it is Asur it from Eglah Arufah is - because he prefers to learn things that serve a dead person from things that serve Avodas-Kochavim (rather than from Eglah Arufah, which is the actual forbidden object itself).

... Abaye declines to learn that it is Mutar from Avodas-Kochavim - because he prefers to learn a regular practice from a regular practice (rather than from something that is forbidden).

Rava's reason for saying 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa hi' is - due to the possibility of the person retracting.