Nazir 51

תנו רבנן איזהו מת שיש לו רקב מת שנקבר ערום בארון של שיש או על גבי רצפה של אבנים זהו מת שיש לו רקב נקבר בכסותו בארון של עץ או על גבי רצפה של לבנים זהו מת שאין לו רקב

§ The mishna taught that one of the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave is a full ladle of dust from a corpse. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Oholot 2:3): Which is a corpse that has the halakha of dust, i.e., whose dust imparts impurity? A corpse that was buried naked in a marble coffin or on a stone floor; this is a corpse that has the halakha of dust that imparts impurity. Any dust found there must have come from the corpse. However, if it was buried in its cloak, or in a wooden coffin, or on a brick floor, this is a corpse that does not have the halakha of dust that imparts impurity. In the latter cases it is assumed that the dust from the corpse includes particles from the clothes, wood, or bricks that disintegrated, and there is a tradition that the impurity of dust applies only to dust that comes solely from the corpse, not to a mixture from different sources.

אמר עולא אין רקב אלא הבא מן הבשר ומן הגידים ומן העצמות איתיביה רבא לעולא רקב הבא מן הבשר טהור הא מן העצם טמא ואף על גב דליכא בשר אימא הכי רקב הבא מן הבשר טהור עד שיש עצם בבשר

With regard to the same issue, Ulla said: Dust is only that which comes from the flesh and from the sinews and from the bones of the corpse together, but not if it came from one of these alone. Rava raised an objection to Ulla from the following baraita: Dust that comes from the flesh is pure. It can be inferred from here that if it comes from the bone it is impure, even though there is no dust of flesh mixed with it. Ulla replied: You should say and infer like this: Dust that comes from the flesh is pure, unless there is bone in the flesh.

הא ליכא גידים אי אפשר לבשר ולעצמות בלא גידים

Rava continued to question Ulla’s opinion: Even if one interprets the baraita in this manner, there is no mention of sinews here at all, and Ulla maintains that sinews must also contribute to the makeup of part of the dust. Ulla replied that there is no need to mention sinews explicitly, as it is impossible for there to be flesh and bones without sinews. Once it is established that the dust is from bones and flesh, it necessarily includes sinews as well.

אמר רב שמואל בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן שני מתים שקברן זה עם זה נעשו גלגלין זה לזה מתיב רב נתן רקב הבא משני מתים טמא

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the dust of a corpse. Rav Shmuel bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Two corpses that were buried with one another become a mixture [galgallin] with one another. Their dust is considered mixed together and does not impart the impurity of the dust from a single corpse. Rav Natan raises an objection to this opinion: But it is taught that dust that comes from two corpses is impure.

אמר רבא שקברו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו והרקיבו ועמדו על מלא תרווד רקב

Rava said: That baraita is referring to a case where they buried this corpse by itself and that corpse by itself, and they decayed separately, and they both stood at, i.e., yielded the amount of, a full ladle of dust. In this situation, the dust imparts impurity despite the fact that it is not from a single corpse, as the status of dust from a corpse initially applied to each corpse. However, if the corpses decayed together they are considered to be mixed together, which means that their dust does not impart impurity.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן גזז שערו וקברו עמו נעשה לו גלגלין תנן התם כל שבמת טמא חוץ מן השינים והשער והצפורן ובשעת חיבורן כולן טמאין

The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to dust of a corpse. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one cut the hair of a corpse and buried the hair with it, the hair becomes part of the mixture for the dust, and it does not impart impurity. In relation to the above, the Gemara states: We learned in a mishna there (Oholot 3:3): Everything that is in a corpse is impure, except for the teeth, the hair, and the nails, which do not impart impurity as part of the body. But when they are attached to the corpse, they are all impure.

בעי חזקיה שערו העומד לגלח צפורן העומד ליגזז מאי מי אמרינן כל העומד ליגזז כגזוז דמי או דלמא השתא מיהא הא מחוברין

With regard to this halakha, Ḥizkiyya raised a dilemma: If hair of a corpse is ready to be shaved, or its nail is ready to be cut, what is the halakha? Do we say that anything that is ready to be cut is considered cut, and therefore these are considered detached from the body and do not impart impurity? Or, perhaps now, in any event, they are attached, and therefore they should impart impurity?

וניפשוט ליה מדרבה בר בר חנה טעמא משום דגזז הא לא גזז לא הכי קאמר גזז הרי זה גלגלים לא גזז מיבעי ליה

The Gemara asks: And let Ḥizkiyya resolve this dilemma from the aforementioned statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, that hair buried with a corpse forms a mixture with the corpse. The inference is as follows: The reason that it forms a mixture is because he cut the hair, from which it may be inferred if he did not cut the hair it would not form a mixture, even if it was ready to be cut. The Gemara rejects this argument: One can respond that this is what Rabba bar bar Ḥana is saying: If he cut it, it definitely forms a mixture; if he did not cut it, Rabba bar bar Ḥana is unsure as to the halakha and he raises this case as a dilemma.

בעי רבי ירמיה רקב הבא מן העקב מהו כי גמרינן רקב הבא מכוליה מת אבל דאתי מן עקב לא או דלמא לא שנא

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raised another dilemma concerning the dust of a corpse: With regard to dust that comes from the heel, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that when we learn this halakha through tradition, is it only in reference to dust that comes from all of a corpse, but with regard to dust that comes from its heel, no, this halakha does not apply; or perhaps it is no different?

תא שמע דתני רבי נתן ברבי אושעיא רקב הבא משני מתים טמא ואי סלקא דעתך הבא מן העקב לא זיל הכא דלמא דרך עקב קאתי והכא דלמא דרך עקב קאתי

The Gemara suggests a resolution of this dilemma: Come and hear, as Rabbi Natan, son of Rabbi Oshaya, taught: Dust that comes from two corpses is impure. And if it enters your mind that dust that comes from the heel does not impart impurity, go here and consider that perhaps the dust came from the heel, and go here too and consider that perhaps it came from the heel. The fact that the dust is considered definitely impure shows that dust from the heel imparts impurity as well.

אי דאירקיב כוליה מת וקאתי דרך עקב הכי נמי אלא הכא כגון דאירקיב חד אבר וקאתי דרך עקב מאי תיקו

The Gemara rejects this argument: If the entire corpse decayed and the dust came from the heel, so too, it is all impure, as the dust of the heel is not considered to be a foreign substance. Rather, here Rabbi Natan is referring to a case where one limb decayed and the dust came from the heel. It was with regard to this situation that Rabbi Yirmeya asked: What is its halakha? Does this dust impart impurity or not? No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רבי ירמיה עובר במעי אשה הוי גלגלים או לא כיון דאמר מר עובר ירך אמו הלכך גופה הוא ולא הוי גלגלין או דלמא כיון דסופו לצאת מיפרש פריש מינה ואם תמצי לומר עובר דסופו לצאת מיפרש פריש מינה

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raised yet another dilemma: Does a dead fetus in its dead mother’s womb form a mixture with regard to her, so that the bodies are considered like two corpses buried together, or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the Master said that a fetus is considered as the thigh of its mother, it is therefore like her body and it does not form a mixture with it? Or perhaps one should maintain: Since in most cases a fetus will ultimately emerge from the womb at birth, it is already considered separated from her, and it is like any other corpse buried with the woman. And if you say that a fetus, which will ultimately emerge, is considered separated from her and is not part of her body, one must still ask this question

שכבת זרע במעי אשה מהו מי אמרינן כיון דלא איתצר כי גופה דמי או דלמא כיון דמעלמא קאתי לא

with regard to semen in a dead woman’s womb. What is the halakha in this case? Does it form a mixture with respect to the woman’s body? The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that since no fetus was formed from the semen, it is considered like her body? Or, perhaps one should argue that since it comes from outside, it is not considered part of her body.

בעי רב פפא פירשה מהו כיון דלא מקיימא בדלא אכלה חיותא הוא או דלמא הא נמי מעלמא אתי בעי רב אחא בריה דרב איקא עורו מהו בעי רב הונא בר מנוח כיחו וניעו מהו

Rav Pappa raised a similar dilemma: With regard to her excrement, the food waste that remains in a woman’s intestines, what is the halakha? Once again, the Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that since she cannot subsist without food it is considered her life, which means that the food left inside her body is part of her and does not form a mixture with the corpse? Or perhaps this too comes from outside and is therefore not part of her body, and does form a mixture with her corpse. Similarly, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, raised a dilemma concerning a corpse: With regard to its skin, what is the halakha? Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ likewise raised a dilemma: With regard to its phlegm and its spittle, what is the halakha?

אמר ליה רב שמואל בר אחא לרב פפא ואי סלקא דעתך כל הני דקאמר הוי גלגלין רקב דמטמא היכי משכחת לה דאשקייה מי דקלים וסכיא נשא ושלקו במי טבריא

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said to Rav Pappa: But if it enters your mind that all these cases of which they spoke form a mixture, under what circumstances do you find this case of dust that imparts impurity? Dust from a corpse will always include some components of the aforementioned elements. The Gemara answers: It is possible. For example, if someone was given palm water [mei dekalim], a powerful laxative, to drink before he died, and was rubbed with a depilatory agent to remove his hair, and was boiled after death in the hot waters of Tiberias until the skin came off, this would remove all matter that is not part of the corpse itself.

אמר אביי נקטינן מת שטחנו אין לו רקב איבעיא להו טחנו וחזר והרקיב מהו מידי הוא טעמא אלא דאיכא בשר וגידים ועצמות והאיכא או דלמא כברייתו בעינן וליכא תיקו

Abaye said: We have a tradition that a corpse that was ground into small pieces has no halakha of dust. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a corpse was ground after death and the remains later decayed, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Is the halakha of dust of a corpse only due to the fact that there is flesh and sinews and bones, and all these are present in this case, so it is impure? Or perhaps, we require the corpse to have decayed from its initial state, before it was ground, and this is not the situation here. As was the case with regard to the previous inquiries, no answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

תני עולא בר חנינא מת שחסר אין לו רקב ולא תפוסה ולא שכונת קברות

§ Ulla bar Ḥanina teaches: A corpse that lacks a part does not have the halakha of dust, which imparts ritual impurity in the amount of a full ladle, nor the halakha of earth that is caught [tefusa] and considered part of a corpse. If a deficient corpse is moved, the surrounding earth is not considered part of it and need not be moved together with the body, as must be performed for a whole corpse. Nor does the halakha of a graveyard apply. If three corpses are discovered in close proximity and one of them is deficient in some way, one need not search for more bodies out of concern that the location might have been a cemetery, as must be done if three intact corpses are found. Rather, the bodies are considered isolated corpses.

מיתיבי לא אם אמרת במת שיש לו רוב ורובע או מלא תרווד רקב תאמר בחי שאין לו לא רוב ולא רובע ולא מלא תרווד רקב

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 6:3) that addresses the question of whether an olive-bulk of flesh that came from a living person imparts ritual impurity as it would were it to come from a corpse: No, if you say that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity with regard to a corpse, whose halakhot of impurity are stringent, as the majority of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, or a quarter-kav of its bones, or even a full ladle of its dust impart impurity, shall you also say that it imparts impurity with regard to a living person, who does not have the halakha of the majority of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, nor a quarter-kav, nor a full ladle of dust?

היכי דמי דארקיב חד אבר דכוותיה גבי מת אפילו חד אבר איכא רקב מי קתני הא מת הא קא משמע לן שום מת יש לו רקב שום חי אין לו רקב

The Gemara analyzes this passage: What are the circumstances of that mishna that deals with a limb from a living person? If you say that one limb of a living person decayed, and the mishna is indicating that in the corresponding situation with regard to a corpse, there is dust even from one limb. This shows that the halakha of dust applies to a corpse that is missing a limb and not just to a complete corpse. The Gemara rejects this argument: Did the mishna teach that this corpse in that particular case of an isolated limb has the halakha of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna teaches us this: The name, i.e., the category, of a corpse has dust. However, the name of a living person does not have dust.

בעי רבא הרקיב כשהוא חי וחזר ומת מהו כי גמירי רקב דאירקיב כשהוא מת או דלמא השתא מיהא הא מיית

Rava raised a dilemma: If a limb of a body decayed when he was alive, and that individual subsequently died, what is the halakha? Do we say that when this is learned as a tradition that dust imparts ritual impurity, this applies only if the body decayed when he was dead, but not when he was alive, and therefore this corpse is considered deficient and its dust does not impart impurity? Or perhaps, now in any event he is dead, and his whole body has decomposed, and consequently its dust does impart impurity.

תא שמע לא אם אמרת במת שיש לו רוב ורובע ומלא תרווד רקב תאמר בחי כו׳

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the aforementioned mishna: No, if you say that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity with regard to a corpse, whose halakhot of impurity are stringent, as the majority of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, or a quarter-kav of its bones, or even a full ladle of its dust imparts impurity, shall you also say that it imparts impurity with regard to a living person, who does not have the halakha of the majority of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, nor a quarter-kav, nor a full ladle of dust.

טעמא משום חי הא מת יש לו רקב מי קתני הא מת הא קא משמע לן דשום מת יש לו רקב שום חי אין לו רקב

The Gemara infers from this passage: The reason the olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity is due to the fact that it is from a living person, from which it may be inferred that in a corresponding situation involving a corpse, the corpse has the halakha of dust, even if the limb had decomposed during the deceased’s lifetime. The Gemara rejects this contention as above: Did the mishna teach that this corpse in that particular case of an isolated limb has the halakha of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna teaches us this: The name, i.e., the category, of a corpse has dust. However, the name of a living person does not have dust.

בעי רבא נמלה שחסרה מהו שיעורא גמירין לה והא חסר או בריה גמירי לה והאיכא

§ In relation to the above discussion concerning a body without a limb, Rava raised a dilemma: If someone eats an entire ant, even if it is less than an olive-bulk in volume, he is liable for eating a creeping animal because it is a whole creature. Rava’s dilemma was as follows: If one eats an ant that lacks a part, e.g., a leg, what is the halakha? Is this individual liable to receive lashes? The two possibilities are as follows: Is it learned as tradition that the amount for which one is liable is a whole ant, and this one is lacking? Or did we learn that he is punished for a viable entity, and there is a viable entity here, despite the missing limb?