כב ת"ש היו אביו ואמו מזרקין בו כלים מצוה על האחרים להצילן
22 [for a tomb]for his father, but goes and buries him elsewhere, he [himself] may neveremploy them for his own grave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'may never be buried in them.' ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Now,if you agree that it is out of respect for his father, it is correct. Butif you say that it is because of designation, does any one maintain thatyarn spun for weaving [a shroud isforbidden]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None, not even Abaye. For Abaye only maintains that if a shroud is actually woven, and so fit for its purpose, it is forbidden through mere designation. But when yarn is spun, though its ultimate destiny is to be woven into a shroud, it is not forbidden, since as yarn it is useless for its purpose. Similarly, when stones are prepared for building a tomb, they should not become forbidden. Hence the prohibition must be on account of filial respect, not designation. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Come and hear! A fresh grave may be used. But if an abortion has been laidtherein, it is forbidden foruse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p 316, n. 2. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Thus, it is so only if it hasactually been laid therein, but nototherwise!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it was merely assigned for an abortion, it is not forbidden, proving that mere assignment is not a material act. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> — The same law holdsgood even if it [the abortion] was not laidtherein;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the assignment of the abortion. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> and it [the statement,'if it has been laid therein'] is [only] intended to exclude the view ofR. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who maintains: Abortions take no possession of theirgraves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they do not impose a lasting prohibition thereon, to operate even after the graves are cleared. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> He therefore teaches us[otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the Tanna is particular to mention 'an abortion,' but is not exact in his statement as to what is done for the abortion. But actually, even if the grave is merely designated for an abortion, it is forbidden for use. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> Come and hear! 'The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for[other] dead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a collection was made for burying the poor, the actual person, however, being unspecified, and at any particular moment there is a balance in hand, it must be kept for other dead. This is so even if, when the collection was made, it was known that it was for certain dead, but they were not specified. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> but the surplus [ofa collection] for a [particular] deceased person belongs to hisheirs'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be used for any purpose, thus proving that designation is not a material act (Mishnah Shek. II. 5). ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — This refers to a case[where the money was] collected during [the deceased's] lifetime. But [theTanna] did not teach thus? For we learnt: The surplus [of a collection] forthe dead must be used for [other] dead, but the surplus [of a collection]for a [particular] deceased person belongs to his heirs. Now, it was taughtthereon: How so? If it was collected for the dead in general that is wherewe rule; The surplus [of a collection] for the dead must be used for [other]dead, but if it was collected for a particular dead person, that is wherewe rule, The surplus [of a collection] for a deceased belongs to his heirs!— But according to your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That assignment is not material. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> considerthe second section: R. Meir said: It must remain intact until Elijahcomes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Elijah the prophet glorified in the Haggadah as a messenger charged with various tasks, one of which is to be the precursor of the Messiah, when he will solve all questions in doubt. (Cf. B.M. 29b; Pes. 15a). ');"><sup>30</sup></span> R. Nathan ruled: It is tobe expended for a monument on his grave, or sprinkling [aromatic wine] beforehis bier.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it would seem that since it was designated for the dead, it must be so used, proving that designation is a material act. [The words, 'Or sprinkling … his bier', do not occur in the cited Mishnah, but in Tosef, Shek. I.] ');"><sup>31</sup></span> But Abaye reconcilesthem<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The differences of opinion in the Mishnah. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> in accordance with his view,and Raba in accordance with hisview.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a way that the differing Tannaim may he seen to agree with their (Abaye's and Raba's) views respectively. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> 'Abaye reconciles them inaccordance with his view;' [thus;] all agree that designation is a materialact. Now, the first Tanna holds that he [the dead] takespossession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it becomes his peculiar property, in the sense that it may not be used for any other purpose. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> only of as much as heneeds, and not of the surplus;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of what he does not need.' ');"><sup>35</sup></span> R.Meir, however, is doubtful whether he takes possession [of the surplus] ornot: consequently it must remain intact until Elijah comes; whereas R. Nathanholds that he certainly takes possession [even of the surplus]; hence itis to be employed for a monument on his grave. 'And Raba in accordance withhis view;' [thus:] all agree that assignment is not a materialact.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reasons given by R. Meir and R. Nathan for prohibiting the balance for general use is not that it is actually forbidden, but because the deceased was put to shame when a public collection was made for his funeral. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> Now, the first Tanna maintains:Though they humiliated him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. preceding note. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> he forgiveshis humiliation for his heirs'sake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that they may have the benefit of the surplus. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> R. Meir, however, is doubtfulwhether he forgives it or not; therefore it must remain intact etc.; whilstR. Nathan takes the definite view that he does not forgive it, thereforethe surplus must be expended on a monument for his grave or for sprinkling[aromatic wine] before his bier. Come and hear! If his father and mother are throwing garments uponhim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their dead son. It was an expression of extreme grief, and a symbol that they were ready to renounce everything left behind, that belonged to him (Rashi). ');"><sup>39</sup></span> it is the duty of others tosave them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By removing them from the corpse, as though returning lost property. Now, had assignment been a material act, how could they be saved after being dedicated to the dead? ');"><sup>40</sup></span>