Clarification: The Din of Meis Mitzvah itself however (that it does not become Asur with designation alone), we learn from Eglah Arufah, as the Gemara explains in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 29b & 30a).

Question (Part 1): How can the skin of a Meis be any worse than the shrouds?

Question (Part 2): Since the Gemara says in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, 122a) that min ha'Torah, human skin is Tahor (and is Mutar be'Hana'ah); and the reason that the Chachamim declared it Tamei, was in order that people should not use the skin of their deceased mothers and fathers to make mats (for their donkeys).

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that in fact, it is Asur min ha'Torah, yet the Chachamim found it necessary to decree Tum'ah, since people take Tum'ah more seriously than Isur ...

Proof: Like we find in the Gemara at the end of 'Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim, 85a) 'Pigul and Nosar are Metamei the hands, due to Kohanim who are suspect and Kohanim who are lazy' - even though they are subject to the 'La'av' of 'Bal Tosiru' anyway.

Question: Why can we not ask the same Kashya on Abaye, who says 'Someone who weaves' - implying that designation alone does not render the article Asur?

Answer (Explanation) #1: One could perhaps answer that it speaks here where some change in the article took place, because a vessel does not lose its status of Tamei without a physical change to it.

Proof #1: Similarly, the case of a 'Nefesh' (a resting-place of stones) that one constructed for living people, to which one added one row of stones on behalf of a Meis" ', implying that designation alone without adding something to it will not suffice (even according to Abaye), seeing as the Gemara queries Rava from there, but not Abaye.

Proof #2: And also seeing as the Gemara mentions 'a purse that one manufactured in order to place in it Tefilin (and not one that he designated)... ' ...

Extention: ... and 'a block of wood used for kneading dough that one designated for sitting' (in Perek Eilu Ovrin - Eruvin, Daf 45b & 46a), and a sheet that one made into a curtain, speak where the original article has been changed.

Question #1: In that case, even if the veil would not have been placed inside the Seifer-Torah it would be Tahor from Medras, seeing as it's original form has been changed?

Question #2: From the case where his father and mother were throwing vessels into the grave ... it appears that merely throwing them into the grave renders them forbidden, even though no change was affected to them?

Answer (Explanation) #2: The correct explanation must therefore be that, according to Abaye, mere words are not effective, until one actually takes the object and verbally dedicates it for the Meis or for the Seifer-Torah.

Clarification: ... and the reason that they mentioned 'Someone who weaves' is 'La'av Davka', but to teach us that even in such a case Rava permits it.

Question: 'Mah Nafshach', how does this speak? If they claimed money, is there anybody who forbids 'spun flax to weave into a garment for a Meis' (as the Gemara asked a little earlier)? Whereas if they claimed clothes, how can they then use it to make a row over the dead man's grave, seeing as it is Asur be'Hana'ah. Why should it be any better than the case in Yevamos, 66b, regarding the fine woolen cloak that they spread over the dead man?

Answer #1: The coat only became Asur there, because they spread it over the dead man.

Answer #2: Alternatively, money is worse than 'flax for weaving', inasmuch as it is fit to purchase anything with it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Hazmanah is of no consequence' and that we do not consider Ibud li'Shemah necessary (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, in that we rule like Rava regarding 'Hazmanah', who in turn, rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, as is evident in Perek ha'Nizakin, (Gitin, Daf 54b) regarding the case where someone came before R. Avahu and declared 'The Seifer-Torah which I wrote, the parchment were not tanned li'Shemah' - to which the latter replied 'Since you are believed to lose your renumeration, you are also believed to disqualify the Seifer-Torah!'

Implied Answer: One cannot differentiate between the leather of skin and the parchment of a Seifer-Torah ... ,

Refutal: ... since the 'Shiyn' of Tefilin is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (no less than a Seifer-Torah.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that when Rava says 'Hazmanah La'av Milsa Hi', he actually holds like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who requires Ibud li'Shemah, precisely because he does not consider Hazmanah sufficient.

Question (Part 1): In that case, Abaye will hold like the Tana Kama, who does not require Ibud li'Shemah ...

Question (Part 2): Whereas in Perek ha'Techeles (Menachos, 42b & 43a) Abaye asked Rav Shmuel ben Yehudah how he dyed the Techeiles for Tzitzis, and the Gemara extrapolates there that the dyeing requires li'Shemah, and the Gemara there compares spinning li'Shemah to Ibud in our Sugya, and the same applies to dyeing?

Answer: We must therefore conclude that Abaye did not accept Rav Shmuel ben Yehudah's reply.

Question: The Gemara at the end of 'ha'Golin' (Makos, 12a) implies that the reason that Yo'av fled was because he thought that the Mizbe'ach 'absorbs' (saves the murderer from death at the hand of the Go'el ha'Dam)?

Answer: In fact, it would have been impossible to escape death in that way, seeing as they could always have kept watch over him so that he could not escape, and he would have died of hunger. Consequently, his intention must have been to ensure that his heirs would inherit his property.

Yerushalmi (Part 1): The Yerushalmi cites a Machlokes Amora'im - According to one opinion, Yo'av thought that the corners of the Mizbe'ach 'absorbed' the murderer, when in fact it is only the roof of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-ha'Mikdash that absorbs, but not that of Shiloh (which is where Yo'av ran); whereas according to others, the one who is described as "the wise one, head of the captains", would hardly have made such a mistake.

Yerushalmi (Part 2): We therefore need to explain that he fled to the Sanhedrin, because, he maintained 'It is better to be killed through the Beis-Din, in which case his children will inherit his property, than to be killed by the king, who will then inherit his property.