The sugya is Sanhedrin 47b–48b. Hazmanah means ‘to set aside’, ‘to designate’. The basic question considered is whether an object that acquires a certain status in law when used for a particular purpose acquires that status even when it has only been designated for that purpose. The example given is the weaving of a garment (a shroud) for a corpse. It is forbidden to enjoy any benefit from a corpse, its grave or its shroud. Abbaye holds that the mere designation for the purpose suffices to render the garment forbidden – hazmanah milta hi, lit. ‘hazmanah is a thing’, i.e. it has substance so that the garment is forbidden as if it had actually been used. Rava holds that mere designation is insufficient to render the garment forbidden - hazmanah lav milta hi, lit. ‘hazmanah is not a thing’, i.e. has no substance, is ineffective, and the garment is not forbidden until it has actually been used as a shroud.

The sugya begins with the debate between Abbaye and Rava: ‘It has been stated: If one weaves a garment for a corpse: Abbaye said: It is forbidden. But Rava said: It is permitted. Abbaye said it is forbidden; hazmanah is effective. But Rava said it is permitted; hazmanah is ineffective.’