Sanhedrin Daf 47 - Hesped, Dichuy
Summary
- This shiur presents the sugya on whether a hesped is yikara d’chayyei or yikara d’shakvei, develops nine proofs and concludes that it is yikara d’shakvei with nafka minot for waiving a eulogy and forcing heirs to pay, analyzes burial policy “ein koverin rasha etzel tzaddik” from the case of the navi sheker near Elisha and its halachic contours, explores the concept of dichuy in korbanot and when mitah affords kapparah including distinctions between harugei malkhut and harugei Beit Din and the stages of kapparah through mitah, kevurah, and nitan achol basar, addresses kibbud av for a rasha through the episode of Hezekiah dragging Ahaz’s bones and reconciles Rashi and Rambam, and rules that mechubar l’karka does not become asur b’hana’ah while kever binyan can, with applications to grave earth and three grave categories.
- The Gemara asks whether a hesped is yikara d’chayyei or yikara d’shakvei and identifies two nafka minot: if the deceased said “al yaspiduni,” he can be mochel his kavod only if it is yikara d’shakvei, and whether heirs can be compelled to pay mesapdim and mekonenim if their obligation is to the deceased’s honor. Tosafot asks from the punishment for failing to eulogize Shaul and answers that the failure stemmed from fear of David and lo taguru mipnei ish or that a melech is different because bezayon hameit is incurred by withholding a hesped, and the Maharsha applies this to Yehoshua. The proof-series cites Avraham delaying burial “lespod leSarah velivkotah” and answers that Sarah herself preferred Avraham’s honor, derives that a hesped must be morid dima’ot from “lespod … velivkotah,” treats the hesped for Aviyah ben Yeravam as tzaddikim welcoming others’ kavod through them, reads Yirmeyahu’s “lo yispedu velo yikaveru” as tzaddikim not desiring kavod through resha’im, interprets Tzidkiyahu’s promised hesped as honor accruing to Israel through him, and cites Hezekiah’s degradation of Ahaz as accepted for Ahaz’s kapparah with Israel mohel their own honor. Rabbi’s directive “al taspiduni be’ayarot” is explained as maximizing Israel’s honor by concentrating crowds, the allowance to delay burial for aron, tachrichin, and mekonenot is framed as kavod hachai without bizayon hameit, and the baraita’s phrase “she’kol ha’oseh eino ela lichvodo shel meit” is read as kavod hachai resulting in no bizayon for the meit. Rabbi Natan’s “siman yafeh lameit she’nifra’in mimenu le’achar mitah” proves yikara d’shakvei, and the conclusion is that a hesped is for the kavod of the meit.
- # Burial of a Rasha Near a Tzaddik
- # Dichuy and When Death Atones
- The Gemara maintains that although execution gives kapparah, burial in kevarot avot waits until nitan achol basar, as indicated by allowing collection of bones only after decomposition. Rav Ashi explains that aveilut begins at mistimat ha’golel while kapparah starts when some tza’ar d’keivra is felt, so ho’il v’idchu, yidchu, and we do not institute aveilut for harugei mitot Beit Din; cases where aveilut is delayed by timing (e.g., yom tov) differ from a met who is not ra’uy for aveilut. The baraita that delaying burial for aron, tachrichin, mekonenot, and hearing in towns does not violate bal talin is limited to absence of bizayon hameit, underscoring kavod hachai without compromising the meit.
- Hezekiah “girrer atzmot aviv al mitah shel chavalim” is justified because Ahaz was a rasha and the degradation served his kapparah, and Rashi, the Tur (YD 240), and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol hold there is no obligation of kibbud for a father who is a rasha. The Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 6) and the Shulchan Aruch (YD 240) rule that even aviv rasha u’ba’al aveirah mechabdo u’mityarei mimenu, while the Rema follows the Tur that one need not honor. The Gemara in Bava Metzia is reconciled by teshuvah of the father, and the chiyuv of a mamzer to honor his father supports the Rambam’s view. The Maharam Shik suggests that the aseh of kibbud (bein adam lachaveiro) does not apply to a rasha, but issur tza’ar while alive does, so after death there is no tza’ar and no chiyuv; Rav Schachter, following the Minchas Chinuch 33, explains that kibbud has components of bein adam lachaveiro (while alive) and bein adam laMakom (kvodo shel Makom), which does not apply to honoring a rasha, yielding obligations for a living rasha but not a dead rasha.
- When earth from Rav’s grave was taken as a refuah for ishta bat yoma, Shmuel permitted it, stating “karka olam hu v’karka olam einah ne’eseret,” and a hekesh from “vayashlech et aphrah al kever bnei ha’am” to avodah zarah limits issur to items not mechubar l’karka. Baraitot that prohibit hana’ah from a kever are limited to kever binyan rather than karka olam, accounting for cases such as a privately constructed grave for a father later unused, a “kever chadash” that becomes asur b’hana’ah when a nefel is placed, and the three grave categories: kever hanimtza (mutar lefanoto; mekomo tahor u’mutar b’hana’ah), kever hayadua (asur lefanoto; mekomo tamei v’asur b’hana’ah), and kever hamezik et harabbim (mutar lefanoto; mekomo tahor v’asur b’hana’ah), all understood in the context of kever binyan rather than ground intrinsically.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions