The Gemara rejects this proof: There, the parents threw the garments onto their son’s bier because of their bitterness over his death, but they did not really mean to designate the garments to be buried with him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, how can one understand that which is taught with regard to this baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is stated with regard to a case where the garments did not yet touch the bier before they were saved. But if they already touched the bier, they are forbidden. If no importance is ascribed to what is done out of bitterness, why should the garments that touched the bier be forbidden?

Ulla interpreted the baraita as referring to a case where the garments were thrown onto a bier that was to be buried together with the son, and it is possible that those garments might be mistaken for shrouds of the deceased. The Sages decreed that it is prohibited to derive benefit from such garments, lest people mistakenly think that just as they are permitted, so too, actual shrouds are permitted. There is no proof from here that mere designation is significant and that articles designated for the dead are permanently forbidden.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof in support of Abaye’s opinion from a baraita: If one fashioned a pouch in which to put phylacteries, it is prohibited to put money in it. If he put phylacteries in it, but he did not designate it beforehand for that purpose, he may still put money in it. The ruling of the first clause indicates that designation is significant. The Gemara rejects this proof: Say that the baraita should be understood as follows: If one fashioned a pouch for phylacteries and then put the phylacteries in it, it is prohibited to put money in it. This is in accordance with the ruling of Rav Ḥisda, that if one designated a cloth for the purpose of bundling phylacteries in it and then he wrapped the phylacteries in it, he may no longer use the cloth to hold money.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita that supports the opinion of Rava: If one said to a craftsman: Fashion me a case [tik] for a Torah scroll, or: Fashion for me a bag [nartik] for phylacteries, as long as he has not yet used them for a sacred purpose, it is permitted for him to use them for a mundane purpose. But if he already used them for a sacred purpose, it is prohibited for him to use them for a mundane purpose. This indicates that mere designation is nothing until the item is actually used for the purpose for which it had been designated.

The Gemara explains: The matter of whether or not mere designation is significant is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita: If one took phylacteries and coated them with gold or patched them with the hide of a non-kosher animal, they are unfit. But if one patched them with the hide of a kosher animal then they are fit, and this is so even though he did not prepare them, i.e., the hides, for their sake, i.e., for the sake of their use in a mitzva. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he patched them with the hide of a kosher animal they are unfit, and they remain unfit until he prepares them for their sake. Preparing the hide for the sake of the mitzva is analogous to designating it for that purpose. The first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who disagree as to whether the hide must be prepared for the sake of the mitzva, differ as to whether designation is significant.

In connection with what was stated previously, that the amora’im disagree whether one is prohibited from deriving benefit from a garment woven for the sake of a dead person, Ravina said to Rava: Is there really such a place where the deceased is first placed on a bier and only afterward do they begin to weave a garment for the deceased? Rava said to Ravina: Yes, this is practiced on behalf of, for example, the dead of Harpanya, where the people are so poor that they cannot prepare shrouds for themselves during their lifetimes.

Mareimar taught that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye that mere designation is significant. And the Rabbis say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava that mere designation is nothing. The Gemara concludes that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava that mere designation is nothing.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those executed by a Jewish king for crimes that they committed against him, their property belongs to the king. As for those executed by the court for a capital transgression, their property belongs to their heirs. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even with regard to those executed by a Jewish king, their property belongs to their heirs. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But isn’t it already stated: “Arise, go down to meet Ahab, king of Israel, who is in Samaria; behold he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he is gone down there to inherit it” (I Kings 21:18)? The wording of the verse indicates that Ahab went down there by right, proving that the property of those executed by the king legally belongs to the king.

Rabbi Yehuda said to them: Ahab was Naboth’s cousin, the son of his paternal uncle, and therefore he was fit to inherit from him. Accordingly, he took possession of the property in his capacity as an heir, and not as the king. They said to him: But Naboth had many sons. Why, then, did they not inherit from him? Rabbi Yehuda said to them: Ahab executed Naboth and also his sons, as it is stated: “I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons” (II Kings 9:26). The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis counter this claim? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, that verse is referring to the sons who would have issued from him had Naboth not been executed. Ahab was held accountable for the blood of Naboth and for the blood of his unborn children.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king, that is the reason that it is written that Jezebel arranged for witnesses to falsely testify that “Naboth cursed God and the king” (I Kings 21:13). Since Naboth cursed the king, Ahab could execute him and seize his property. But according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to their heirs, why do I need the testimony that Naboth cursed the king? It would have sufficed for the witnesses to testify that he cursed God, in which case he would have been executed by the court, and Ahab would have taken possession of the vineyard as his heir.

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, that the witnesses testified that Naboth cursed the king so that Ahab could execute him and seize his property, why do I need the additional testimony that Naboth cursed God? Rather, you must say that the witnesses were instructed to testify that Naboth cursed both God and the king in order to increase the anger of the judges by accusing him of a second offense. So too, it can be argued that according to Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, the witnesses testified that Naboth also cursed the king in order to increase the anger of the judges. No proof can be brought from here that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Granted, according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king, that is the reason that it is written: “And Joab fled to the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar” (I Kings 2:28), describing Joab’s actions after it became known that he supported Adonijah, and furthermore it is written: “And he said, I will not leave, for here I will die” (I Kings 2:30). Joab did not want to be put to death by the king because he did not want his property to pass into the king’s possession. But according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to their heirs, what difference did taking refuge in the Sanctuary make to him? The Gemara answers: Joab fled to the sanctuary in order to live a short while longer. Consequently, there is no proof from here to either side of the dispute.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the incident involving Joab. After Joab took refuge in the Sanctuary and King Solomon sent Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, to fall upon him, Benaiah ordered Joab to leave the sanctuary, whereupon Joab refused. The verse then states: “And Benaiah brought the king word back, saying: So said Joab, and so he answered me” (I Kings 2:30). The Gemara explains: Joab said to him: Go and say to Solomon: You cannot perform two actions to this man, i.e., to me, Joab. If you kill him, i.e., me, you and your descendants will receive the curses with which your father cursed me. And if you do not wish to receive those curses, let him go so that he may receive the curses with which your father cursed him. And the next verse states: “And the king said to him: Do as he has said, and fall upon him, and bury him.” Solomon thereby accepted his father’s curses upon himself and his descendants.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the curses with which David cursed Joab were ultimately fulfilled in David’s descendants, due to the curse that Solomon accepted upon himself. David cursed Joab: “Let the house of Joab never lack such as are afflicted with a discharge, or a leper, or that hold onto a staff, or fall by the sword, or lack bread” (II Samuel 3:29).

The Gemara clarifies: The curse of being afflicted “with a discharge,” i.e., a zav, was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Rehoboam, as it is written: “And King Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot [bamerkava] to flee to Jerusalem” (I Kings 12:18), and it is written: “And whatever saddle [hamerkav] he that has a discharge rides upon shall be unclean” (Leviticus 15:9). The similarity between the words merkava and merkav indicates that Rehoboam was a zav.

The curse of “a leper” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Uzziah, as it is written: “But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). And it is also written: “And leprosy broke out on his forehead” (II Chronicles 26:19).

The curse of those who “hold onto a staff” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Asa, as it is written concerning him: “But in the time of his old age, he was diseased in his feet” (I Kings 15:23). And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means that he was seized with gout [podagra]. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Naḥman: What are the circumstances and symptoms of this disease? Rav Naḥman said to him: The pain is similar to the pain of a needle piercing live flesh. The Gemara asks: How did Rav Naḥman know what gout is like? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he himself suffered from the disease. And if you wish, say that he learned it as a tradition from his teacher. And if you wish, say that he knew this through divine inspiration, as the verse states: “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show to them His covenant” (Psalms 25:14).

The curse of those who “fall by the sword” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Josiah, as it is written: “And the archers shot at King Josiah” (II Chronicles 35:23), and Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They shot him with so many arrows that they turned his whole body into a sieve.

The curse of those who “lack bread” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Jeconiah, as it is written concerning him: “And as for his food allowance, there was a continual food allowance given him by the king, a daily portion for every day, all the days of his life” (II Kings 25:30). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This explains the adage that people say: