Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2023 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 51

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Ildiko Rosenfeld, 爪讘讬讛 专讞诇 讘转 诪专讚讻讬 讛诇讜讬 讜诪专讬诐. 鈥淪he embodied elegance, grace, and wisdom.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari on the 6th yahrzeit of her mother, Daphne Rhodes, 讚驻谞讛 讚讘讜专讛 讘转 讗讘专讛诐 讜讞谞讛. 鈥淢um was a loving, vivacious woman with a great sense of humor, and was determined to be a better mother to her children than her own mother had been to her. Later in life, when she and Dad retired to Netanya, she indulged her love of singing and dramatics in the Netanya AACI Musical Theatre Group 注讜专讬 注讜专讬 讚讘讜专讛, 注讜专讬 注讜专讬 讚讘专讬 砖讬专.”

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her mother Florence Rich z”l.

The impurity of rakav, dust from a corpse is limited, as noted in a braita and several statements of amoraim. The body must be without any clothing, on a floor of stone or marble, alone (not with another body) with flesh, bones and sinews, not buried with hair, nails or teeth that were removed from the body.聽 A question is asked regarding dust that comes from the heel as even in one’s lifetime the heel is somewhat of a dead zone in the body as its flesh is callous. After suggesting an answer, the Gemara reinterprets the question. Another set of questions is asked regarding rakav – since it is not applicable when there are two bodies that decompose together, what about a pregnant woman who died with the fetus in her womb? What about if there was semen in the woman’s body, or feces or skin? After all these questions, Rav Shmuel bar Acha says that if we limit all these cases, there will be no impurity of rakav!! To which, Rav Papa answered how there could be a case. Rakav is only when the dust is from a decomposed body and not if the body was ground into dust. What if it was ground up and then decayed? Rakav also does not apply to a body that is not whole. Two other halachot also do not apply to an incomplete corpse – tefusa (when moving a grave, one must dig up the surrounding earth as well)and a graveyard (if one finds three bodies, one needs to search the area as there may likely be the site of an ancient cemetery). A Mishna in Eduyot 6:3 is brought to raise a difficulty against this but it is resolved. Rava asks another question that the Mishna in Eduyot is brought as an answer, but that answer is rejected.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 诪转 砖谞拽讘专 注专讜诐 讘讗专讜谉 砖诇 砖讬砖 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专爪驻讛 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讝讛讜 诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 谞拽讘专 讘讻住讜转讜 讘讗专讜谉 砖诇 注抓 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专爪驻讛 砖诇 诇讘谞讬诐 讝讛讜 诪转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


搂 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.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 专拽讘 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 讛讗 诪谉 讛注爪诐 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬砖 注爪诐 讘讘砖专


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.


讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讙讬讚讬诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘砖专 讜诇注爪诪讜转 讘诇讗 讙讬讚讬诐


Rava continued to question Ulla鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖拽讘专谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 谞注砖讜 讙诇讙诇讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讟诪讗


搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the dust of a corpse. Rav Shmuel bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖拽讘专讜 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讝 砖注专讜 讜拽讘专讜 注诪讜 谞注砖讛 诇讜 讙诇讙诇讬谉 转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讘诪转 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛砖注专 讜讛爪驻讜专谉 讜讘砖注转 讞讬讘讜专谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉


The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to dust of a corpse. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讘注讬 讞讝拽讬讛 砖注专讜 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙诇讞 爪驻讜专谉 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉


With regard to this halakha, 岣zkiyya 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?


讜谞讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝讝 讛讗 诇讗 讙讝讝 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讝讝 讛专讬 讝讛 讙诇讙诇讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讝 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And let 岣zkiyya resolve this dilemma from the aforementioned statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na, 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 岣na is saying: If he cut it, it definitely forms a mixture; if he did not cut it, Rabba bar bar 岣na is unsure as to the halakha and he raises this case as a dilemma.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注拽讘 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪专讬谞谉 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪转 讗讘诇 讚讗转讬 诪谉 注拽讘 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


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?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注拽讘 诇讗 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讱 注拽讘 拽讗转讬 讜讛讻讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讱 注拽讘 拽讗转讬


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.


讗讬 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讻讜诇讬讛 诪转 讜拽讗转讬 讚专讱 注拽讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讞讚 讗讘专 讜拽讗转讬 讚专讱 注拽讘 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛诇讻讱 讙讜驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪讬驻专砖 驻专讬砖 诪讬谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讜讘专 讚住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪讬驻专砖 驻专讬砖 诪讬谞讛


Rabbi Yirmeya raised yet another dilemma: Does a dead fetus in its dead mother鈥檚 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


砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转爪专 讻讬 讙讜驻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗


with regard to semen in a dead woman鈥檚 womb. What is the halakha in this case? Does it form a mixture with respect to the woman鈥檚 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.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬专砖讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讞讬讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 注讜专讜 诪讛讜 讘注讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 诪讛讜


Rav Pappa raised a similar dilemma: With regard to her excrement, the food waste that remains in a woman鈥檚 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 A岣, son of Rav Ika, raised a dilemma concerning a corpse: With regard to its skin, what is the halakha? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 likewise raised a dilemma: With regard to its phlegm and its spittle, what is the halakha?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚拽讗诪专 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬谉 专拽讘 讚诪讟诪讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗砖拽讬讬讛 诪讬 讚拽诇讬诐 讜住讻讬讗 谞砖讗 讜砖诇拽讜 讘诪讬 讟讘专讬讗


Rav Shmuel bar A岣 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 诪转 砖讟讞谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟讞谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛专拽讬讘 诪讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘砖专 讜讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讘专讬讬转讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜


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.


转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转 砖讞住专 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘 讜诇讗 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转


Ulla bar 岣nina 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讜讘 讜专讜讘注 讗讜 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 转讗诪专 讘讞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 专讜讘 讜诇讗 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘


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?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗专拽讬讘 讞讚 讗讘专 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 诪转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 讗讘专 讗讬讻讗 专拽讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诪转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讜诐 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 砖讜诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛专拽讬讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讞讝专 讜诪转 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 专拽讘 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诪讬讬转


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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讜讘 讜专讜讘注 讜诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 转讗诪专 讘讞讬 讻讜壮


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.


讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬 讛讗 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诪转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讜诐 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 砖讜诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


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鈥檚 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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 谞诪诇讛 砖讞住专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讗 讞住专 讗讜 讘专讬讛 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗


搂 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鈥檚 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?


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 prohibitions of the Nazir. Each one has an aspect that is more...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 51: Dust to Dust

More with the gore. When does the dust from a decaying corpse impart impurity? Also, what about substances within a...

Nazir 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 51

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 诪转 砖谞拽讘专 注专讜诐 讘讗专讜谉 砖诇 砖讬砖 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专爪驻讛 砖诇 讗讘谞讬诐 讝讛讜 诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 谞拽讘专 讘讻住讜转讜 讘讗专讜谉 砖诇 注抓 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 专爪驻讛 砖诇 诇讘谞讬诐 讝讛讜 诪转 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


搂 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.


讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 专拽讘 讗诇讗 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 讛讗 诪谉 讛注爪诐 讟诪讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讘砖专 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬砖 注爪诐 讘讘砖专


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.


讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讙讬讚讬诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘砖专 讜诇注爪诪讜转 讘诇讗 讙讬讚讬诐


Rava continued to question Ulla鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 砖拽讘专谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 谞注砖讜 讙诇讙诇讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞转谉 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讟诪讗


搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the dust of a corpse. Rav Shmuel bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖拽讘专讜 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讛专拽讬讘讜 讜注诪讚讜 注诇 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘


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.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讝 砖注专讜 讜拽讘专讜 注诪讜 谞注砖讛 诇讜 讙诇讙诇讬谉 转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 砖讘诪转 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛砖注专 讜讛爪驻讜专谉 讜讘砖注转 讞讬讘讜专谉 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉


The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to dust of a corpse. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讘注讬 讞讝拽讬讛 砖注专讜 讛注讜诪讚 诇讙诇讞 爪驻讜专谉 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉


With regard to this halakha, 岣zkiyya 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?


讜谞讬驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝讝 讛讗 诇讗 讙讝讝 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讝讝 讛专讬 讝讛 讙诇讙诇讬诐 诇讗 讙讝讝 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And let 岣zkiyya resolve this dilemma from the aforementioned statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na, 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 岣na is saying: If he cut it, it definitely forms a mixture; if he did not cut it, Rabba bar bar 岣na is unsure as to the halakha and he raises this case as a dilemma.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注拽讘 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪专讬谞谉 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪讻讜诇讬讛 诪转 讗讘诇 讚讗转讬 诪谉 注拽讘 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


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?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 专拽讘 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注拽讘 诇讗 讝讬诇 讛讻讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讱 注拽讘 拽讗转讬 讜讛讻讗 讚诇诪讗 讚专讱 注拽讘 拽讗转讬


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.


讗讬 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讻讜诇讬讛 诪转 讜拽讗转讬 讚专讱 注拽讘 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讞讚 讗讘专 讜拽讗转讬 讚专讱 注拽讘 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛诇讻讱 讙讜驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪讬驻专砖 驻专讬砖 诪讬谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 注讜讘专 讚住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 诪讬驻专砖 驻专讬砖 诪讬谞讛


Rabbi Yirmeya raised yet another dilemma: Does a dead fetus in its dead mother鈥檚 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


砖讻讘转 讝专注 讘诪注讬 讗砖讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转爪专 讻讬 讙讜驻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注诇诪讗 拽讗转讬 诇讗


with regard to semen in a dead woman鈥檚 womb. What is the halakha in this case? Does it form a mixture with respect to the woman鈥檚 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.


讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 驻讬专砖讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讘讚诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讞讬讜转讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讬 讘注讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 注讜专讜 诪讛讜 讘注讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 诪讛讜


Rav Pappa raised a similar dilemma: With regard to her excrement, the food waste that remains in a woman鈥檚 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 A岣, son of Rav Ika, raised a dilemma concerning a corpse: With regard to its skin, what is the halakha? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 likewise raised a dilemma: With regard to its phlegm and its spittle, what is the halakha?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讛谞讬 讚拽讗诪专 讛讜讬 讙诇讙诇讬谉 专拽讘 讚诪讟诪讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗砖拽讬讬讛 诪讬 讚拽诇讬诐 讜住讻讬讗 谞砖讗 讜砖诇拽讜 讘诪讬 讟讘专讬讗


Rav Shmuel bar A岣 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 诪转 砖讟讞谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讟讞谞讜 讜讞讝专 讜讛专拽讬讘 诪讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘砖专 讜讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讘专讬讬转讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜


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.


转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转 砖讞住专 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘 讜诇讗 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转


Ulla bar 岣nina 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讜讘 讜专讜讘注 讗讜 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 转讗诪专 讘讞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 专讜讘 讜诇讗 专讜讘注 讜诇讗 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘


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?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗专拽讬讘 讞讚 讗讘专 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 诪转 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 讗讘专 讗讬讻讗 专拽讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诪转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 砖讜诐 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 砖讜诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讛专拽讬讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讜讞讝专 讜诪转 诪讛讜 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 专拽讘 讚讗讬专拽讬讘 讻砖讛讜讗 诪转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诪讬讬转


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.


转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪转 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讜讘 讜专讜讘注 讜诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 转讗诪专 讘讞讬 讻讜壮


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.


讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞讬 讛讗 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诪转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讜诐 诪转 讬砖 诇讜 专拽讘 砖讜诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 专拽讘


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鈥檚 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.


讘注讬 专讘讗 谞诪诇讛 砖讞住专讛 诪讛讜 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讗 讞住专 讗讜 讘专讬讛 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗


搂 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鈥檚 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?


Scroll To Top