Sanhedrin Daf 48 סַנהֶדרִין דַף 48

At the end of the previous Daf, Abaye said that האורג בגד למת – if one weaves a burial garment for a specific corpse, it is forbidden in any other benefit, even before being used for burial, because he holds הזמנה מלתא היא – designation is a significant matter. Rava says it is permitted until it is actually used for burial, because he holds הזמנה לאו מילתא היא. Rava derives this law from items used to service avodah zarah, which are not forbidden in benefit until they are used for idolatry (since both are משמשין – accessories). Abaye derives his ruling from עגלה ערופה, which becomes prohibited before it is actually killed (both these items are normal, permitted practices, as opposed to avodah zarah). In response to a challenge, the Gemara says Rava holds like Rav Chisda, who ruled about a pouch דאזמניה למיצר ביה תפילין – which one designated for wrapping tefillin in it, וצר ביה תפילין – and he actually wrapped tefillin in it, it is forbidden to wrap coins in it, but if he only did one or the other, it is still permitted. [Abaye agrees that the wrapping alone would not prohibit it]

The Gemara quotes a Baraisa which proves that merely designating items for a sefer Torah or tefillin does not forbid it for other uses, supporting Rava’s opinion that הזמנה לאו מילתא. The Gemara responds that the question is a machlokes Tannaim: a Baraisa states that casings made from the hide of a non-kosher animal are unfit for tefillin. If they were made from the hide of a kosher animal, the Tanna Kamma says that are fit for use, אף על פי שלא עיבדן לשמן – even though he did not tan them specifically for their purpose (i.e., to be used for tefillin). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even casings made from the hide of a kosher animal are not fit to be used for tefillin, עד שיעבדו לשמן – unless he tans them specifically for their purpose. These Tannaim argue if the preparatory designation is significant (and would have to be done לשמה). The Gemara concludes that the halachah follows Rava.

In a Baraisa, the Tanna Kamma says: הרוגי מלכות נכסיהן למלך – regarding those executed by the king (for rebellion), their property goes to the king. הרוגי בית דין נכסיהן ליורשין – Regarding those executed by Beis Din, their property goes to their heirs. Rebbe Yehudah says that even the property of those executed by the king belongs to their יורשים. They told Rebbe Yehudah that we find that King Achav received the vineyard of Navos after killing him for rebellion!? Rebbe Yehudah answered that Achav was Navos’s cousin and inherited it as his closest relative (although Navos had many sons, Rebbe Yehudah says Achav killed them). The Gemara asks, if the property of those executed by the king goes to the king, it is understandable why Yoav fled from בניהו to the משכן and refused to leave, declaring he would die there, because he hoped to be killed by Sanhedrin rather than the king so his יורשים would receive his property. But if his property would be inherited by his יורשים regardless, what was his purpose in fleeing to the משכן? The Gemara answers: לחיי שעה – to gain a few more hours of life.