משנה: עַל אֵילּוּ הַטֻּמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְעַל כְּזַיִת נֵצֶל וְעַל מְלֹא תַּרְװַד רָקָב עַל הַשִּׁזְרָה וְעַל הַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵלֵיהֶם בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי וְעַל חֲצִי קַב עֲצָמוֹת וְעַל חֲצִי לוֹג דָּם וְעַל מַגָּעָן וְעַל מַשָּׂאָן וְעַל אֲהִילָן. וְעַל עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה וְעַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ וְעַל אֲהִילוֹ עַל אֵילּוּ הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה בַּשְׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי וְסוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִים וְאֵינוֹ מַתְחִיל לִמְנוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּטְהַר וְיָבִיא אֶת קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו. MISHNAH: The nazir shaves for the following impurities: For a corpse, for flesh in the volume of an olive of a corpse, and for the volume of an olive of decayed matter from a corpse60Either decaying flesh or fluid from the corpse. If it is decayed so that it looks like dust it is counted as decay and follows the standard of the spoonful (under certain conditions). It is implied that all impurities enumerated in the Mishnah are biblical in nature., and for a spoonful of decay, for the spine and for the skull61Even if no flesh is left., for a limb from a corpse or a limb from the living on which there is sufficient flesh62“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal., for half a qab63A qab is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of bones, and for half a log63A qab is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of blood, if they are touched, or carried64Even if the carrier does not touch the cause of impurity., or under a tent43If a grave is is the shade of a tree, the entire canopy of the tree forms a “tent” over the grave; any person passing under the tree becomes impure by the impurity of the dead (Numbers.19.14">Num. 19:14).. Also for a bone in the volume of a barley grain if it is touched, or carried, (or under a tent.)65The last clause, which originally was also in Babli mss., is a scribal error since only half a qab of bones transmits impurity in a tent but less than that transmits impurity only by touch or carrying, not in a tent (Nazir 49b:1:1" href="/Tosafot_on_Nazir.49b.1.1">Tosaphot 49b, s. v. על משאו). For these, the nazir shaves, he sprinkles on the third and seventh [days], he disregards the preceding days and starts to count only after he purifies himself and brings all his sacrifices.
הלכה: עַל אֵילּוּ הַטֻּמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ כול׳. חַד סָב שָׁאַל מֵרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת מְטַמֵּא. כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר לוֹ. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנֶּפֶל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְזַיִת. חָזַר וְשָׁאַל. אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת מְטַמֵּא. לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן כּוּלּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנֶּפֶל שֶׁלֹּא קָֽרְשׁוּ אֵיבָרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חֲכִים הוּא הָהֵן סַבָּא דְּלָא חֲכִים מַשְׁאִיל. מִכֵּיוָן דִּשְׁאַל לְקַדְמִיתָא לָא הֲוָה צָרִיךְ מִישְׁאַל תִּינְייָתָא. וְאִיבָּעֵי מִישְׁאוֹל תַּרְתֵּיהוֹן שְׁאַל תִּינְייָתָא וַחֲזֵר מִישְׁאַל קַדְמִיתָא. תַּלְמִידוֹי דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שְׁאַלוּן תִּינְייָתָא וְלָא שְׁאַלוּן קַדְמִיתָא. דְּהָא פְשִׁיטָא לוֹן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְזַיִת דָּבָר בָּרִיא הוּא שֶׁלּא קָֽרְשׁוּ אֵיבָרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר חִזְקִיָּה. נְהִיר אַתְּ דַּהֲוָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא קָאִים הָכָא. וְאַף תַּרְתֵּין שְׁאֵילָתָא דָהֵן סַבָּא בָּאֲהִילוּת לְהָדָא מִילָּה לֹא. שֶׁהַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עֲלֵיהֶן. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיִיתִי סָבוּר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּפָלִים תּוֹרָה. מִמַּה שֶׁהוּא מוֹשִׁיב אֶת אִימָּן יְמֵי טוֹהַר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. שֶׁהַנְּפָלִים תּוֹרָה. HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan66In the Nazir.49b-50b">Babli, 49b/50b, the entire discussion is tannaïtic: Symmachos, a student of R. Meïr, asked R. Jehudah.: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also67The formulation of the Mishnah is redundant. If one kezayit of a corpse induces the impurity of the dead, why is it necessary to say that a complete corpse induces the impurity?? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive68As explained in Niddah 3:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Niddah.3.3.1">Mishnaiot Niddah 3:3 ff.. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell69No limb has a recognizable shape.. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first70If the fetus does not fill the volume of an olive, it is to be assumed that its limbs are not recognizable. If its limbs are not recognizable, the body still might be larger than the volume of an olive.. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta71He is “R. Yose” the Tanna; in the Babli, he gives the explanations ascribed in the Yerushalmi to R. Joḥanan. asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar72There is no “R. Mana bar Hizqiah” mentioned otherwise in the entire talmudic/midrashic literature. Moreover, it is not mentioned who his partner was. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow all commentators and emend בר to לר׳ and read: “R. Mana (II) said to R. Ḥizqiah.” Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut12The only method of execution recognized for Gentiles, Sanhedrin.57a">Babli Sanhedrin 57a. that the nazir shaves for them74R. Yose’s criticism of the old man is unjustified since it would not be inconsistent with either Mishnah to hold that a corpse induces biblical impurity but a small part of the corpse only rabbinic impurity. In that case, the double mention in the Mishnah would be justified and, as noted in the sequel, R. Joḥanan once held this opinion.? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah75It is generally accepted that a termination of pregnancy within 40 days of conception is simply a failed conception, not an abortion, since there is no human fetus (Niddah 3:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Niddah.3.5.1">Niddah 3:5, Note 135). The status of the fetus between the 41st day and delivery is never defined in the biblical text.. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity76Mishnaiot Niddah 3:3–5 state that if there was a miscarriage and the sex of the fetus cannot be determined, the mother has to observe 14 days of impurity (for a girl) but the next 26 days are days of purity during which no genital discharge will make her impure (Niddah 3:5:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Niddah.3.5.2">Niddah 3:2, Note 14). Since normally any genital discharge induces the seven-day impurity of menstruation in a woman, the rules of Tractate Niddah imply that the impurity of a stillbirth is biblical. If the impurity were rabbinic, it could not imply immunity (by necessity biblical) from impurity., it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽמְרוּ. הַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא בְכָעֲדַשָּׁה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשֶּׁרֶץ תְּחִילָּת בְּרִייָתוֹ בְּכָעֲדַשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. הַמֵּת יְטַמֵּא פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנֶּפֶל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְזַיִת. וּנְבֵילָה מְטַמָּא כְּאָפוּן. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. אֲנִי רָאִיתִי עֵגֶל כְּאָפוּן בִּשְׁפִיר. מַאי כְדוֹן. מִדְרָשׁוֹת אֲמִינָא. דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal77Enumerated in Leviticus.11.29-30">Lev. 11:29–30. the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil78In the Nazir.52a">Babli, 52a and Niddah.56a">Niddah 56a, the parallel is an anonymous tannaïtic statement, deriving the power of tradition to determine the amount which induces impurity from the change in wording from בהם in Leviticus.11.31">Lev. 11:31 to מהם in 11:32. Since that change is required by the meaning of the verses, the Babli’s source is the school of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”79This in itself is an irrelevant question since R. Joḥanan makes it clear, here and elsewhere, that the minimal size requirements do not apply to fully formed creatures (cf. Berakhot 6:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.6.1.4">Berakhot 6:1, Note 17; Nazir.51b">Babli Nazir 51b).? And a carcass80From an otherwise kosher animal but which dies without being slaughtered. the size of a pea should cause impurity81When in fact the unchallenged tradition is that a minimum volume of an olive is required., for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward82But rules of practice should never be derived from sermons..
אֵי זֶהוּ נֵצֶל. בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁנָּתוּק וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁקָּרַשׁ. הָא עוֹדֵהוּ מָחוּי לֹא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. חֶלְבּוֹ הַמֵּת שֶׁהִתִּיכוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא. חֲתָכוֹ וְהִתִּיכוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. רִבִּי יוּדָן וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חַד אָמַר. לְהוֹצִיא מֵי בָשָׂר שֶׁבּוֹ. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. שְׁאִם יִקְרַשׁ וִיהֵא בוֹ כְזַיִת יְהֵא מְטַמֵּא מָחוּי. What is decayed matter? Flesh of the corpse which was separated83This text does not make much sense. The parallel in the Nazir.50a">Babli, 50a, reads בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ, “Flesh of the corpse that coagulated and fluid that was heated.” A gloss in the Arukh (s. v. נצל) explains: “A stillbirth whose flesh coagulated but did not firm.” The quote from the Yerushalmi reads in the Arukh: בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁנָּצַל וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁקָּרַשׁ which can also be translated as: “Flesh of the corpse which was separated and fluid that coagulated”, the difference being that נצל means “to separate” in an abstract sense, as in Genesis.31.16">Gen. 31:16 where Rachel and Leah congratulate themselves that God had separated Laban’s property from him and transferred it to them, while נתק means bodily separation, “tearing apart.” The suggestion by M. Margalit and J. Sussman to read נתוך instead of נתוק has no basis. It is remarkable that Tosephta Ahilut (2:3, quoted later in our text) goes into the details of the rules of decay but except for a fleeting reference to our Mishnah (Ahilut 4:5) never mentions נֵצֶל. If the text is taken as it stands, one might define nēṣel as “fibers from the corpse and fluid that coagulated.” and fluid that coagulated. Therefore not when it84The blood in an intermediate state between fluidity and coagulation. It is unreasonable to assume that the blood should be impure as fluid and as fully coagulated matter, but not in an intermediate state. is still mashed? Did not Rebbi Ḥanina say in the name of Rebbi: 85The text is paralleled in the Nazir.50a">Babli, 50a, and Tosephta Ahilut 4:3. In the latter, a Babylonian scribe or compiler systematically wrote חתך for התך, היתיך (as noted by D. Pardo). Fat from a corpse86The text is a contamination of two versions. “The fat of a corpse” may either be חֵלֶב הַמֵּת or חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל הַמֵּת. which was melted remains impure; if he cut it87The fat was cut in pieces smaller than olive size. Either this was done outside a “tent” (because all body parts of a corpse under one “tent” are joined together by the “tent”; Tosephta Ahilut 4:4), or small pieces of fat from two different corpses are fused together by heating. The resulting olive-sized piece is not impure since “connection by a human is not counted” (Tosephta Ahilut 4:3). and then melted it, it is pure88Then the question is, if the state of the material does not matter, why should the mashed state matter?. Rebbi Yudan and Rebbi Yose, one says to exclude the fluid in the flesh89Any fluid which is not blood but oozes from a corpse is impure only if it became solid in an olive-sized piece.; the other says that if it will fill the volume of an olive when congealed, it will be impure when still mashed90An exactly olive-sized piece of colloidal material will be pure since in solid form it will have shrunk..
תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁיָּבַשׁ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁרוֹת וְלַחֲזוֹר כְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא מִן הַנְּבֵילָה לָמַד. מִן הַנְּבֵילָה מַה נְבֵילָה אִם יָֽבְשָׁה טְהוֹרָה אַף הַמֵּת אִם יָבַשׁ יְהֵא טָהוֹר. רִבִּי אִמִּי בָּעֵי. אִי מָה הַנְּבֵילָה אִם נִסְרְחָה טְהוֹרָה אַף הַמֵּת אִם נִסְרַח יְהֵא טָהוֹר. מֵעַתָּה אֵין נֵצֶל כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. יֵשׁ נֵצֶל. חֲבֵרַייָא בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִי מָה הַנְּבֵילָה אֵין לָהּ רָקָב אַף הַמֵּת אֵין לָהּ רָקָב. אָמַר לוֹן. לֹא לָמַד הַמֵּת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה לָעֲצָמוֹת אֶלָּא לְבָשָׂר. אֵין רָקָב לְבָשָׂר יֵשׁ רָקָב לָעֲצָמוֹת. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא וּרְקַב עֲצָמוֹת קִנְאָה. רִבִּי יַנַּיי אָמַר. אוֹ בְקָבֶר. אֲפִילוּ נָגַע בְּקֶבֶר אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן. חֲבָרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. מְסָרֵס קִרְייָא. אוֹ בְקָבֶר. אוֹ בְרָקָב הוּא. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא אוֹמֵר. אוֹ בְקָבֶר. אוֹ בְרָקָב. We have stated91Mishnah Niddah 7:1.: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked92The Niddah.56a">Babli, Niddah 56a, explains soaking 24 hours in lukewarm water. will not return to its former status is pure93In the Niddah.56a">Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure94Niddah.56a">Babli, Niddah 56a., so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure95Bekhorot.23b">Babli, Bekhorot 23b. The argument is based on Deuteronomy.14.21">Deut. 14:21 which requires the animal carcass to be given to the non-Jewish resident or sold to the stranger. It is inferred that once a carcass can no longer be given away or sold, it has lost its legal standing as carcass. This corresponds to the rule, expounded at length in Tractate Kelim, that impure objects become pure once they have lost any commercial value., would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter93In the Niddah.56a">Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay96By the argument of Nazir 7:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.7.2.5">Note 95, a decaying animal carcass has no commercial value and, therefore, is pure. “No decay” means “no impurity classified under the heading of ‘decay’ ”., so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh97The argument of the colleagues is well taken; R. Yose accepts the impurity of human decay only for decaying bone material, not for decayed flesh., there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy98Proverbs.14.30">Prov. 14:30..” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave99Numbers.19.20">Num. 19:20. This is a new statement. Touching a grave induces the impurity of the dead irrespective of the age of the grave and the person buried while in the opinion of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai only a Jewish corpse induces the impurity of a “tent” (Yevamot.61a">Babli Yebamot 61a.) The Babli concurs (loc. cit.). R. Yannai’s statement is attributed in the Nazir.54a">Babli, 54a, to his student R. Simeon ben Laqish.”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he100As confirmed by a fragment of baraita, Bar Qappara holds that any root may represent all 6 permutations of its letters. This cannot be classified as a derivation; it is a hint.) transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי. מְלֹא תַרְװָד אֶחָד נָטַל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִמְּקוֹם הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּבָרָא בוֹ אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר. הַלְוַאי יִיבָּרֵא מִמְּקוֹם הַמִּזְבַּחַ וּתְהֵא לוֹ עֲמִידָה. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב וַיִּיצֶר יי֨ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וּכְתִיב מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַעֲשֶׂה לִי. מָה אֲדָמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מִזְבֵּחַ אַף כָּאן מִזְבֵּחַ. וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. קָרוֹב לְאֶלֶף שָׁנָה חָיָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאַתְּ אָמַר וְהָיוּ יָמָיו מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. אֶלָּא לְק̇כ̇ שָׁנָה הוּא חוֹזֵר לִמְלוֹא תַרְװָד אֶחָד רָקָב. וְקַשְׁיָא. עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. וְתִינּוֹק בֶּן יוֹמוֹ מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. עוֹג מְלֹא תַרְװָד רָקָב. וְתִינּוֹק בֶּן יוֹמוֹ מְלֹא תַרְװָד רָקָב. מְלֹא תַרְװָד רָקָב שֶׂאָֽמְרוּ יֶשְׁנוֹ מִקִּישְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּלְמַעֲלָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מְלֹא הַיָּד הַגְּדוֹלָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מְחַוֵּי הָדָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר הָכֵין וְהָדָא דְרַבָּנִן הָכֵין. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, took a spoonful from the place of the altar and created Adam from it. He said, he shall have been created from the place of the altar so that he should be able to stand up101Gen. rabba 14(9), R. Berekhiah and R. Ḥelbo in the name of R. Samuel ben Naḥman. The altar, with definite article, is the altar in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem which by tradition [Gen. rabba 34(8)] is the altar used by Adam, Noah, and Abraham.. That is what is written: “The Eternal Omnipotent formed Adam the first of dust from the earth102Genesis.2.7">Gen. 2:7.”, and it is written: “You shall build for me an altar of earth103Ex. 20:24..” Since “earth” there means an altar, here also [it means] an altar. “His days should be a hundred and twenty years.104Genesis.6.3">Gen. 6:3.” Adam the first lived close to a thousand years and you say, “his days should be a hundred and twenty years”! But after 120 years he returns to be a spoonful of decay. That is difficult. For Og, the king of Bashan, 120 years, and for a newborn baby 120 years? Og [becomes] a spoonful of decay, and a newborn baby becomes a spoonful of decay. “105Tosephta Ahilut 2:2; Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 7:1, as legal principle independent of the story of 120 years. Quoted in the Nazir.50b">Babli, 50b, but there the rabbis derive the decay from the body of the hand, without the fingers. The spoonful of decay which they mentioned is from his finger joints and upwards, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, from a fully developed hand.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi was illustrating that of Rebbi Meïr one way, that of the rabbis in another way.
אֵי זֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רָקָב. הַנִּקְבַּר עָרוּם בְּאָרוֹן שֶׁלְּשַׁיִישׁ אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי רִצְפָּה אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי טַבֶּלָּה שֶׁלְּשַׁיִישׁ. אֲבָל אִם נִקְבַּר בִּכְסוּתוֹ עַל אָרוֹן שֶׁלְּעֵץ אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי טַבֶּלָּה שֶׁלְּעֵץ אֵין זֶה רָקָב. זֶהוּ עֲפַר קְבָרוֹת וְצָרִיךְ מְלֹא תַרְװָד וְעוֹד. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִקְבַּר עִמּוֹ אֲפִילוּ גִילְגְּלִין קָטָן אֵין זֶה רָקָב. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵי מֵתִים שֶׁקְּבָרָן זֶה בְצַד זֶה. זֶה נַעֲשֶׂה גִילְגְּלִין לָזֶה וְזֶה נַעֲשֶׂה גִילְגְּלִין לָזֶה. מַה נַפְשֵׁךְ. גִּילְגְּלִין לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. הָתִיב אַבָּא בַּר נָתָן. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהֵבִיא חֲצִי תַרְװָד רָקָב מִזֶּה וַחֲצִי תַרְװָד רָקָב מִזֶּה וְעִירְבָן זֶה בָזֶה. וַהֲוָה עַייְנָן. וְאִיתְחֲמֵי גָחִיךְ וְאִיקְפַּד עֲלוֹי וָמִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵא. הָא אֲזִיל גוֹבְרָא וְלָא שְׁמָעִינָן מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. מַאי כְדוֹן. תַּמָּן אֵין כָּל־אֶחָד רָאוּי לְמַלֵּא תַּרְװָד רָקָב. בְּרַם הָכָא כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד רָאוּי לִמְלוֹא תַּרְװָד רָקָב. “Which corpse has decay106Obviously, every corpse will eventually produce decayed matter. What is meant here is, under which circumstances does one apply the rules of “decay” which induces impurity by the spoonful, and when the rules of “grave dust” which requires more than a spoonful (Ahilut Mishnah 2:2, Tosephta 2:3.)? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor, or on a marble table. But if he was buried in a wooden casket or on a woooden plank; that is not decay but graves’ dust and needs somewhat more than a spoonful.”107Tosephta Ahilut 2:3; quoted in the Nazir.51a">Babli Nazir 51a, Niddah.27b">Niddah 27b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if even the smallest attachment was buried with him, there is no decay108But graves’ dust. In the Nazir.51a">Babli, 51a, this is implied by a statement of Ulla.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Of two corpses which were buried together, each one becomes an attachment for the other109Nazir.51a">Babli 51a.. This110That there is symmetry between both corpses. is automatic; could one alone be an attachment to another? Abba bar Nathan111In the Nazir.51a">Babli, 51a, a Rav Nathan states that decay combined from two corpses induces impurity. objected: Think of it, that somebody brought half a spoonful from one and half a spoonful from the other! He112R. Yasa. was considering it when he113Abba bar Nathan. was seen laughing; he112R. Yasa. was offended by him and he113Abba bar Nathan. died. Rebbi Yose114Two generations later. said, there this man is gone and we did hear nothing about it115Whether decay from two corpses combines to induce impurity.. What about it? There, neither of them will produce a spoonful of decayed matter, but here, each of them can generate a spoonful of decay116If two corpses are buried in a common grave, neither of them can produce decay by R. Joḥanan’s definition. But pure decay from two distinct corpses can be combined..
נֶחְתְּכָה רַגְלוֹ. מֵאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַעֲלָה אֵין לוֹ רָקָב. מֵאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַטָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ רָקָב. נִקְבְּרָה עִמּוֹ. מֵאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַטָּן הִיא נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ גִּילְגְּלִין. מֵאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַעֲלָן אֵין נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ גִּילְגְּלִין. חֲבֵרַייָא בְּעוּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדּוּמָא. קָשַׁר גִּילְגְּלִין מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַטָּן. וְאָמַר לוֹן. אִין כֵּינִי אֲפִילוּ לֹא נֶחְתְּכָה אֶרְאֶה אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא חַתּוּכָה וְתֵיעָשֶׂה לוֹ גִּילְגְּלִין. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא מְחוּבֶּרֶת לוֹ כּוּלּוֹ גוּף אֶחָד הוּא. חָסֵר מָהוּ שֶׁיִהְיֶה לוֹ רָקָב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. חָסֵר אֵין לוֹ רָקָב וְאֵין לוֹ תְפִישַׂת קֶבֶר וְאֵין לוֹ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. כַּמָּה יֶחְסַר וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ רָקָב. יָיבֹא כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּינָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת. וָכָא כֵן. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁנִּיקַּב װֶשְׁטּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ חָסַר וְאֵינוֹ חָיָה. לֵית לָךְ אֶלָּא כְּהָדָא. נֶחְתְּכָה רַגְלוֹ. מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַטָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ רָקָב. מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַעֲלָן אֵין לוֹ רָקָב. נִקְבְּרָה עִמּוֹ. מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַטָּן נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ גִּילְגְּלִין. מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָה וּלְמַעֲלָן אֵינָהּ נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ גִּילְגְּלִין. If his foot was cut off, from above the joint117Since there is no Yerushalmi extant to Tractate Ḥulin, it is impossible to know exactly what is meant. Chullin 6:4" href="/Mishnah_Chullin.6.4">Mishnah Ḥulin 6:4 states that an animal, one of whose legs was cut above the ארכובה, is unfit for consumption since it could not survive. There is no unanimity as to which leg joint is meant, the knee or the ankle. In the language of the Babli, both are called ארכובה (root רכב by metathesis from biblical ברך) and are distinguished by appropriate adjectives. It is reasonable to identify ארכובה here as the ankle, but this is far from certain. there is no “decay”118The corpse is missing a limb; the rules of “decay” do not apply., from below the joint there is “decay”. If it119The amputated limb. was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him120Since he could have survived the amputation, the part taken becomes an attachment. But if the part amputated is so large that by the medical standards of the day the patient could not have survived, the amputated leg is part of the corpse if buried together with it., from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so121If the amputated limb was sewn back to the corpse, if it were considered a separate part then any limb could be considered separate and there never would be a complete corpse. The Nazir.63b">Babli, 63b, does not require sewing but holds that a grave makes a complete corpse whole even if it was brought to the grave in pieces., even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves122This is also quoted in the Nazir.51b">Babli, 51b.
It is stated in Nazir 9:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.9.3.1">Mishnah 9:3 that a person who finds an unattended corpse must bury it together with all surrounding earth which might have soaked up his blood. This is now qualified to apply only to complete corpses.
If one finds three graves next to one another they form a cemetery which may not be disturbed. The rules governing possible removal of graves are detailed in Nazir 9:3:2-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.9.3.2-8">Halakhah 9:3. The rules arc restricted here to graves containing complete corpses.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there123Mishnah Ahilut 2:3. In the list of body parts of a corpse which cause impurity by touch and carrying but not in a “tent” appears an incomplete skull. The skull is considered incomplete by the House of Shammai if it exhibits a hole made by a surgeon’s drill, but by the House of Hillel only if the missing piece was large enough so “that he would die if it was removed.”: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.
נְפָלִים מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהֶן רָקָב. מָאן דָּמַר. דָּמָן מְטַמֵּא בִּרְבִיעִית. יֵשׁ לָהֶן רָקָב. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵין דָּמָן מְטַמֵּא בִּרְבִיעִית. אֵין לָהֶן רָקָב. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. עֲפַר תְּלוּלִיּוֹת לָמָּה הוּא טָמֵא. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים קוֹבְרוֹת שָׁם נִפְלֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלֹא דְּמוּכֵּי שְׁחִין קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֵיבָרֵיהֶן. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר מִשֵּׁם רָקָב לֹא מִשֵּׁם מַגַּע כִּשְׂעוֹרָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי. נָטַל מִמֶּנּוּ עָפָר וּסְמָכוֹ לוֹ טָהוֹר. תִּיפְתָּר כְּהָדֵין תַּנָּייָא דְתַנֵּי. עֲקָרוֹ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְטָהֵר. Do stillbirths generate “decay”? For him who says that their blood induces impurity by a quartarius124For him a fetus is human; a stillbirth follows all rules of human corpses. they generate “decay”; for him who says that their blood does not induce impurity by a quartarius, do they generate “decay”? Let us hear from the following: 125Tosephta Ahilut 16:1: “Small heaps close to a town or to a road, whether new or old, are impure since women bury there their stillbirths and lepers their limbs. Far away, new ones are pure, old ones impure; I am saying that there had been a road nearby.”“Why is the dust from small heaps impure? Because women bury there their stillbirths.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Would it not be reasonable otherwise, that lepers bury their limbs there?126Obviously, the Tosephta in this formulation was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi. The full Tosephta text is paraphrased in the Ketubot.20b">Babli, Ketubot 20b. You must say that it is because of “decay”, not because a bone the size of a lentil, since it was stated127If some decay is replaced by pure dust from another place, the latter becomes an attachment and by the rules of the previous paragraph, the earth lost its character of “decay”. But if the impurity were caused by a human bone, its impurity would be original biblical impurity; the new dust would have become impure immediately as a “tent” over the bone. Therefore, the second opinion expressed in the first part of the Tosephta is inconsistent with the rule stated at the end.: “If he took some dust from it and replaced it, [the small heap] is pure.” Explain it following Tannaïm, as it was stated: If one removed it128If the entire little heap was levelled (without there appearing any bones in it), it remains impure if one assumes that some bone is buried below the levelled surface; it is pure if one assumes that it consisted only of “decay”., it remains impure; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares it pure.
אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. וְיָֽרְדוּ בְשִׁיטַּת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי. הַשִּׁזְרָה וְהַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת אֲפִילוּ מְכוּתָּתִין אְפִילוּ מְפוּרָקִין טָמֵא. שֶׁהַקֶּבֶר מְצָֽרְפָן מִשּׁוּם אָדָם בָּאֹהֶל. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said129This name attribution cannot be correct since R. Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna, student of R. Meïr. A statement of his appears in Tosephta Ahilut 2:6, denying that people with a trepanned skull can survive a winter. Probably one has to read: R. Eleazar said., it was formulated following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: 130This refers to the Mishnah and explains why spine and skull were mentioned separately when “half a qab of bones” is also mentioned and both a skull and a spine fill the required volume of about 1 liter. A similar (anonymous) text is in Tosephta Ahilut 2:5: “A spine of which bones were removed is pure even if its outline still exists; But in a grave it is impure, even if broken, even if crushed, since the grave unites them.” The spine and the skull are impure even if crushed, even disconnected, because the grave unites them as “a human in a tent”131Numbers.19.14">Num. 19:14..
מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. בְּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ בָתֵּי דִּינִין חֲלוּקִין. מִקְצָתָן אוֹמְרִין. רְבִיעִית דָּם רוֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת. מִקְצָתָן אוֹמְרִין. חֲצִי לוֹג דָּם חֲצִי לוֹג עֲצָמוֹת. לִנְזִירוּת וּלְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וָקֳדָשָׁיו. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִדְרָשׁ אָֽמְרוּהָ מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah132Probably both “Eleazar ben Azariah” and “Simeon ben Eleazar” should read simply “Eleazar”., as it was stated133Tosephta Ahilut 4:13: “Rebbi Eleazar said, earlier the Elders were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones; some said, half a qab of bones and half a log of blood. The later court said: a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones for heave and sacrifices, a half a qab of bones and half a log of blood for the nazir and the Temple.” It is difficult to correct the Yerushalmi text by the Tosephta since our text clearly puts Temple and sacrifices in the same category. In a parallel text to the Tosephta in the Nazir.53a">Babli, 53a, the speaker is R. Eliezer. Instead of “Temple” (meaning “access to the Temple”), he formulates the equivalent, “people who come for the Passover sacrifice”.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, earlier the courts were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter bones; some said, half a log of blood, a half a log of bones, for nezirut and the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon134R. Simeon ben Laqish.: They said this135The determination of the minimum amounts inducing impurity was the result of prophetic inspiration, rathet than of logical derivation. In the Babli, loc. cit., this is a statement of R. Jacob bar Idi himself. as explanation from the mouths of Ḥaggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.