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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 13, 2015 | 诇壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 52

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐 讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐

Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said: Come and hear the following halakhic midrash concerning the ritual impurity of creeping animals. The verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought this halakha applies only to all of them, i.e., to complete creatures. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them, when they are dead, fall, it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32), which indicates that part of these creatures also imparts impurity. If the halakha were derived solely from the phrase 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that it applies even to a small part of them. The verse therefore states: 鈥淭hem,鈥 which means all of them.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘诪拽爪转谉 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇谉 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖讻谉 讛讞讜诪讟 转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

How so? How can one reconcile the two verses? He does not become ritually impure unless he touches at least part of them that is equal in measure to all of them, i.e., a large part. And the Sages calculated that this is the volume of a lentil-bulk. Why is this? As the start of the formation of a skink, one of the eight impure creeping animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk. This concludes the halakhic midrash. With regard to the issue at hand, one can learn from here that it is learned as a tradition that the amount for a creature to be considered whole is a lentil-bulk. If so, an ant missing a limb should likewise not have the status of a creature.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讻讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讘讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讚诇讗 谞驻诇讛 讘讛 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 讘讛 谞砖诪讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

Rav Shemaya said, in refutation of this argument: When we require the above amount, that if it is not the volume of a lentil-bulk it does not impart impurity, the requirement applies only in a case where the creature does not have a living soul before it grows to the size of a lentil. However, if it does have a soul, this volume is not required. If the creature can survive, perhaps it does impart impurity even if it is lacking a limb. Consequently, with regard to an ant that is missing a limb, the dilemma remains unresolved for you.

讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖讚专讛 砖讙讬专讚 专讜讘 注讬诇注讬谉 砖讘讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘拽讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜讘专转 讗讜 诪驻讜专拽转 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讛拽讘专

搂 The mishna taught that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a spine and skull. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn a spine and [ve] skull together? Or perhaps the mishna means either a spine or a skull. Does the conjunctive vav signify: And, or: Or? Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: In the case of a spine, the majority of whose ribs were removed while the spine itself remained intact, it is ritually pure. And if it was in a grave, even if it was broken or disassembled, it is impure, due to the grave, which joins all the bones together.

讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬专讚 讛讗 诇讗 讙讬专讚 讟诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讙讬专讚 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讚讱 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

The Gemara infers from this baraita: The reason it is ritually pure in the first case is due to the fact that the ribs were removed, from which it may be inferred that if they were not removed, it is impure on its own, even without the skull. Learn from this that the mishna teaches: Either a spine or a skull. The Gemara rejects this claim: The baraita does not teach this explicitly. It does not state that if the ribs were not removed the spine imparts ritual impurity by itself. Rather, the baraita teaches us this, that if the ribs were removed the spine is pure. And as to the other issue, the impurity of a spine on its own, the dilemma remains unresolved for you.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 拽讜驻讛 诪诇讗讛 注爪诪讜转 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞讜讛 讘讗讜讬专 讜谞讻谞住 转讜讚讜住 讛专讜驻讗 讜讻诇 讛专讜驻讗讬诐 [注诪讜] 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 砖讚专讛 诪诪转 讗讞讚

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Oholot 4:2). Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva deems six items impure that the Rabbis deem pure, and Rabbi Akiva later retracted his opinion. And an incident occurred in which they brought a box that was full of bones to the synagogue of blacksmiths [tarsiyyim], and they placed it in an open airspace, not under the roof, so that it would not impart ritual impurity. And Todos the doctor entered and all the other doctors entered with him, and they said, after examining the pile: There is not a full spine from one corpse here.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讚诪讞讚讗 讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚诪讞讚讗 谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚诪诪转 讗讞讚 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜 砖讚专讛 诪诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诪诪转 讗讞讚 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara infers from this incident: The reason it is ritually pure is due to the fact that there was no spine from one corpse, from which one can infer that if there is either a spine or a skull from one corpse, a nazirite must shave due to it. Learn from this that we learned in the mishna that a nazirite shaves either for a spine or a skull. The Gemara rejects this argument: The tanna of the baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state that there is no spine and skull from one corpse in the box, but even the remains of either a spine from one corpse or a skull from one corpse, which together impart impurity, are not present. Instead, there are parts of spines and skulls from several bodies.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诪谞讬讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讛谉 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 注诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讜注诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜注诇 讞爪讬 拽讘 注爪诪讜转 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讜注诇 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬诐 讜注诇 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖谞讞诇拽 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear from the tally in the above baraita: And what are those six items that Rabbi Akiva deems ritually impure and the Rabbis deem ritually pure? They consist of a limb from a corpse that comes from, i.e., is combined with, two corpses; and a severed limb from a living person that comes from two living people; and half-kav of bones that come from two corpses; and a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses; and of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, even from one body, that was divided into two; and the spine and the skull from two corpses.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讛谞讬 砖讘注讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讻讬 拽转谞讬 (住讬诪谉 讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 讙讬诇讞 讜讗讞讚)

And if it enters your mind that the halakha applies to either a spine or a skull and they are two separate halakhot, these are seven cases, rather than six. The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be brought from here, as when the tanna teaches this tally he lists seven items. However, only six are fully relevant here, and therefore he said they were six. The Gemara inserts a mnemonic device for the ensuing suggestions as to which item in the list is not necessary in this context: An individual disagrees with him; that he; a nazirite shaves for it; and one quarter-log.

讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖谞讞诇拽 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讟讛专

The first explanation is: Rabbi Akiva listed the spine and skull as separate items, but the six include anywhere that many Sages disagree with him, to the exclusion of the case of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, as here it is an individual who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 2:7): If a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk was divided into two, Rabbi Akiva deems it impure and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri deems it pure. In this case, only one Sage disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he includes a limb severed from a corpse, but he does not teach a limb severed from a living person, and that was the case that was not listed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讗讛讬诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讚诇讗

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he mentions anywhere that a nazirite shaves for his overlaying, i.e., he formed a tent over the remains of a corpse, to the exclusion of the case of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, as it does not impart ritual impurity in a tent. As stated in the mishna, this bone imparts impurity only through contact and carrying.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讗 转砖谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讘讞讝专讛 砖讛专讬 诇诪讜讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬讚讜

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he lists anywhere that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion, to the exclusion of a quarter-log of blood, as he did not retract his opinion in that case, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: Do not teach a quarter-log of blood in the list of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 retractions, as Rabbi Akiva held onto his opinion in this regard.

讜注讜讚 讛诪拽专讗 诪住讬讬注讜 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 讬诪讬讜 讛讬讛 诪讟诪讗 讗诐 诪砖诪转 讞讝专 讘讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 转谞讗 讛讜砖讞专讜 砖讬谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转注谞讬讜转讬讜

And furthermore, the verse supports his opinion, as it states: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The plural form 鈥渂odies鈥 indicates that two corpses can join together, as stated by Rabbi Akiva. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon says: All his days, Rabbi Akiva would deem a quarter-log of blood from two corpses ritually impure. Whether he retracted his opinion after he died, this I do not know. A Sage taught: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 teeth blackened due to his fasts, which he undertook for uttering this irreverent comment about Rabbi Akiva.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诪谉 讛注爪诪讬诐 讗讜 诪砖谞讬诐 讗讜 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讘注 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪专讜讘 讛讘谞讬谉 讗讜 诪专讜讘 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讻讜诇谞讬 诇注砖讜转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara returns to the earlier discussion. Come and hear an answer to the question of whether a spine and skull must be together to impart ritual impurity, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:7) that Beit Shammai say: The quarter-kav of bones, which imparts impurity in a tent, can be from several bones [ha鈥檃tzamim] or from two or from three bones, but they cannot be from one bone. And Beit Hillel say: The quarterkav of bones must come from the same body, either from the majority of the structure of the skeleton or from the majority of the number of 248 bones in the body. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I can establish the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel as one. In other words, I can explain their opinions so that there is no dispute between them.

砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖谞讬诐 讗讜 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讜 诪砖谞讬 砖讜拽讬讬诐 讜讬专讱 讗讞讚 讗讜 诪砖谞讬 讬专讻讬讬诐 讜砖讜拽 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪讙讜讘讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 讗讜 诪专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讗讜 诪专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘诪驻专拽讬 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诐 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转

How so? As when Beit Shammai say: From two or three bones, they mean either from two shins and one thigh, or from two thighs and one shin. Since the majority of a person鈥檚 height is contained in the height of these limbs, they are considered the majority of the structure of the body. And Beit Hillel say: Parts from the body, or from the majority of the structure, or from the majority of the number of bones, since they include the joints of the hands and feet, which comprise many small bones, impart impurity. Shammai says: Even a bone from the spine or from the skull imparts impurity. In this source, Shammai explicitly refers to a spine or a skull.

砖讗谞讬 砖诪讗讬 讚诪讞诪讬专 诇讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪讞诪讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讗讞讚 讚讗转讬 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讛讜谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: One cannot establish a general halakha from this source, for Shammai is different, as he is invariably stringent, whereas the Rabbis might disagree. The Gemara inquires: If so, let us resolve the opposite from this baraita: The reason that Shammai spoke of a spine or a skull is that Beit Shammai are stringent, from which it may be inferred that according to the Rabbis a spine and skull are not ritually impure unless both a spine and skull are present. The Gemara rejects this proof too: No, the Rabbis disagree with Shammai only with regard to one bone that comes from the spine or from the skull, but when it is intact, even if the bone is from one of them, either the spine or the skull, they possibly agree that it imparts impurity.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诪讗讬 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞爪讬 拽讘 注爪诪讜转 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪砖讗专 讗讘专讬讜 讗讘诇 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: With regard to a quarter-kav of bones from a spine and a skull, what is the halakha? Does a nazirite shave for them? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: When the mishna teaches that one shaves for a half-kav of bones, does this apply only when they are from his other limbs, but in the case of bones from the spine and skull, which are stringent, as they impart ritual impurity on their own, even a quarter-kav of bones imparts impurity? Or perhaps it is no different.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讚讗转讬 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讞诪讬专 诇讬转谞讬 注诇 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜壮

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna, which teaches: The spine and the skull. And if it enters your mind that a quarter-kav of bones that come from a spine and skull is more stringent than other limbs and imparts ritual impurity, let the tanna teach this halakha in a manner that presents a greater novelty, by stating: For a quarter-kav of bones that come from the spine and the skull.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 52

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚讬住拽专转讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐 讗讬 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐

Rav Yehuda from Diskarta said: Come and hear the following halakhic midrash concerning the ritual impurity of creeping animals. The verse states: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought this halakha applies only to all of them, i.e., to complete creatures. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them, when they are dead, fall, it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32), which indicates that part of these creatures also imparts impurity. If the halakha were derived solely from the phrase 鈥渙f them,鈥 one might have thought that it applies even to a small part of them. The verse therefore states: 鈥淭hem,鈥 which means all of them.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讚 砖讬讙注 讘诪拽爪转谉 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇谉 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖讻谉 讛讞讜诪讟 转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

How so? How can one reconcile the two verses? He does not become ritually impure unless he touches at least part of them that is equal in measure to all of them, i.e., a large part. And the Sages calculated that this is the volume of a lentil-bulk. Why is this? As the start of the formation of a skink, one of the eight impure creeping animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk. This concludes the halakhic midrash. With regard to the issue at hand, one can learn from here that it is learned as a tradition that the amount for a creature to be considered whole is a lentil-bulk. If so, an ant missing a limb should likewise not have the status of a creature.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讻讬 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专讗 讚讘讚诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讻注讚砖讛 诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讚诇讗 谞驻诇讛 讘讛 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 讘讛 谞砖诪讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

Rav Shemaya said, in refutation of this argument: When we require the above amount, that if it is not the volume of a lentil-bulk it does not impart impurity, the requirement applies only in a case where the creature does not have a living soul before it grows to the size of a lentil. However, if it does have a soul, this volume is not required. If the creature can survive, perhaps it does impart impurity even if it is lacking a limb. Consequently, with regard to an ant that is missing a limb, the dilemma remains unresolved for you.

讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转谞谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖讚专讛 砖讙讬专讚 专讜讘 注讬诇注讬谉 砖讘讛 讟讛讜专讛 讜讘拽讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜讘专转 讗讜 诪驻讜专拽转 讟诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讛拽讘专

搂 The mishna taught that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a spine and skull. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did we learn a spine and [ve] skull together? Or perhaps the mishna means either a spine or a skull. Does the conjunctive vav signify: And, or: Or? Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita: In the case of a spine, the majority of whose ribs were removed while the spine itself remained intact, it is ritually pure. And if it was in a grave, even if it was broken or disassembled, it is impure, due to the grave, which joins all the bones together.

讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬专讚 讛讗 诇讗 讙讬专讚 讟诪讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 拽转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讙讬专讚 讟讛讜专讛 讗讬讚讱 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

The Gemara infers from this baraita: The reason it is ritually pure in the first case is due to the fact that the ribs were removed, from which it may be inferred that if they were not removed, it is impure on its own, even without the skull. Learn from this that the mishna teaches: Either a spine or a skull. The Gemara rejects this claim: The baraita does not teach this explicitly. It does not state that if the ribs were not removed the spine imparts ritual impurity by itself. Rather, the baraita teaches us this, that if the ribs were removed the spine is pure. And as to the other issue, the impurity of a spine on its own, the dilemma remains unresolved for you.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 拽讜驻讛 诪诇讗讛 注爪诪讜转 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诇 讟专住讬讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞讜讛 讘讗讜讬专 讜谞讻谞住 转讜讚讜住 讛专讜驻讗 讜讻诇 讛专讜驻讗讬诐 [注诪讜] 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 砖讚专讛 诪诪转 讗讞讚

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Oholot 4:2). Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva deems six items impure that the Rabbis deem pure, and Rabbi Akiva later retracted his opinion. And an incident occurred in which they brought a box that was full of bones to the synagogue of blacksmiths [tarsiyyim], and they placed it in an open airspace, not under the roof, so that it would not impart ritual impurity. And Todos the doctor entered and all the other doctors entered with him, and they said, after examining the pile: There is not a full spine from one corpse here.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讚诪讞讚讗 讛讗讬讻讗 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚诪讞讚讗 谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 转谞谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚诪诪转 讗讞讚 诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讜 砖讚专讛 诪诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诪诪转 讗讞讚 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara infers from this incident: The reason it is ritually pure is due to the fact that there was no spine from one corpse, from which one can infer that if there is either a spine or a skull from one corpse, a nazirite must shave due to it. Learn from this that we learned in the mishna that a nazirite shaves either for a spine or a skull. The Gemara rejects this argument: The tanna of the baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state that there is no spine and skull from one corpse in the box, but even the remains of either a spine from one corpse or a skull from one corpse, which together impart impurity, are not present. Instead, there are parts of spines and skulls from several bodies.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诪谞讬讬谞讗 讜诪讛 讛谉 砖砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 注诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讜注诇 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜注诇 讞爪讬 拽讘 注爪诪讜转 砖讘讗 诪砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 讜注诇 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讛讘讗 诪砖谞讬诐 讜注诇 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖谞讞诇拽 诇砖谞讬诐 讜讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear from the tally in the above baraita: And what are those six items that Rabbi Akiva deems ritually impure and the Rabbis deem ritually pure? They consist of a limb from a corpse that comes from, i.e., is combined with, two corpses; and a severed limb from a living person that comes from two living people; and half-kav of bones that come from two corpses; and a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses; and of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, even from one body, that was divided into two; and the spine and the skull from two corpses.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讜 砖讚专讛 讗讜 讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讛谞讬 砖讘注讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讻讬 拽转谞讬 (住讬诪谉 讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 讙讬诇讞 讜讗讞讚)

And if it enters your mind that the halakha applies to either a spine or a skull and they are two separate halakhot, these are seven cases, rather than six. The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be brought from here, as when the tanna teaches this tally he lists seven items. However, only six are fully relevant here, and therefore he said they were six. The Gemara inserts a mnemonic device for the ensuing suggestions as to which item in the list is not necessary in this context: An individual disagrees with him; that he; a nazirite shaves for it; and one quarter-log.

讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 专讘讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖谞讞诇拽 诇砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讟讛专

The first explanation is: Rabbi Akiva listed the spine and skull as separate items, but the six include anywhere that many Sages disagree with him, to the exclusion of the case of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, as here it is an individual who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a mishna (Oholot 2:7): If a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk was divided into two, Rabbi Akiva deems it impure and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri deems it pure. In this case, only one Sage disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛诪转 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he includes a limb severed from a corpse, but he does not teach a limb severed from a living person, and that was the case that was not listed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讗讛讬诇讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 讚诇讗

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he mentions anywhere that a nazirite shaves for his overlaying, i.e., he formed a tent over the remains of a corpse, to the exclusion of the case of a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, as it does not impart ritual impurity in a tent. As stated in the mishna, this bone imparts impurity only through contact and carrying.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诇讗 转砖谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 讘讞讝专讛 砖讛专讬 诇诪讜讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讬讚讜

And if you wish, say a different item on the list that is omitted from the tally: When he teaches six, he lists anywhere that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion, to the exclusion of a quarter-log of blood, as he did not retract his opinion in that case, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: Do not teach a quarter-log of blood in the list of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 retractions, as Rabbi Akiva held onto his opinion in this regard.

讜注讜讚 讛诪拽专讗 诪住讬讬注讜 讜注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 讬诪讬讜 讛讬讛 诪讟诪讗 讗诐 诪砖诪转 讞讝专 讘讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 转谞讗 讛讜砖讞专讜 砖讬谞讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转注谞讬讜转讬讜

And furthermore, the verse supports his opinion, as it states: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). The plural form 鈥渂odies鈥 indicates that two corpses can join together, as stated by Rabbi Akiva. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon says: All his days, Rabbi Akiva would deem a quarter-log of blood from two corpses ritually impure. Whether he retracted his opinion after he died, this I do not know. A Sage taught: Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 teeth blackened due to his fasts, which he undertook for uttering this irreverent comment about Rabbi Akiva.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诪谉 讛注爪诪讬诐 讗讜 诪砖谞讬诐 讗讜 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 专讜讘注 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 诪专讜讘 讛讘谞讬谉 讗讜 诪专讜讘 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讬讻讜诇谞讬 诇注砖讜转 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara returns to the earlier discussion. Come and hear an answer to the question of whether a spine and skull must be together to impart ritual impurity, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:7) that Beit Shammai say: The quarter-kav of bones, which imparts impurity in a tent, can be from several bones [ha鈥檃tzamim] or from two or from three bones, but they cannot be from one bone. And Beit Hillel say: The quarterkav of bones must come from the same body, either from the majority of the structure of the skeleton or from the majority of the number of 248 bones in the body. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I can establish the statement of Beit Shammai and the statement of Beit Hillel as one. In other words, I can explain their opinions so that there is no dispute between them.

砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖谞讬诐 讗讜 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讜 诪砖谞讬 砖讜拽讬讬诐 讜讬专讱 讗讞讚 讗讜 诪砖谞讬 讬专讻讬讬诐 讜砖讜拽 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讜讘 讙讜讘讛讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪讙讜讘讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬讛 讗讜 诪专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讗讜 诪专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘诪驻专拽讬 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诐 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讗讜 诪谉 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转

How so? As when Beit Shammai say: From two or three bones, they mean either from two shins and one thigh, or from two thighs and one shin. Since the majority of a person鈥檚 height is contained in the height of these limbs, they are considered the majority of the structure of the body. And Beit Hillel say: Parts from the body, or from the majority of the structure, or from the majority of the number of bones, since they include the joints of the hands and feet, which comprise many small bones, impart impurity. Shammai says: Even a bone from the spine or from the skull imparts impurity. In this source, Shammai explicitly refers to a spine or a skull.

砖讗谞讬 砖诪讗讬 讚诪讞诪讬专 诇讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诪讞诪讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讗讬 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讗讞讚 讚讗转讬 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜诪谉 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讛讜谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: One cannot establish a general halakha from this source, for Shammai is different, as he is invariably stringent, whereas the Rabbis might disagree. The Gemara inquires: If so, let us resolve the opposite from this baraita: The reason that Shammai spoke of a spine or a skull is that Beit Shammai are stringent, from which it may be inferred that according to the Rabbis a spine and skull are not ritually impure unless both a spine and skull are present. The Gemara rejects this proof too: No, the Rabbis disagree with Shammai only with regard to one bone that comes from the spine or from the skull, but when it is intact, even if the bone is from one of them, either the spine or the skull, they possibly agree that it imparts impurity.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 诪讗讬 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞爪讬 拽讘 注爪诪讜转 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪砖讗专 讗讘专讬讜 讗讘诇 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚讞诪讬专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: With regard to a quarter-kav of bones from a spine and a skull, what is the halakha? Does a nazirite shave for them? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: When the mishna teaches that one shaves for a half-kav of bones, does this apply only when they are from his other limbs, but in the case of bones from the spine and skull, which are stringent, as they impart ritual impurity on their own, even a quarter-kav of bones imparts impurity? Or perhaps it is no different.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讚讗转讬 诪谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讞诪讬专 诇讬转谞讬 注诇 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜壮

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna, which teaches: The spine and the skull. And if it enters your mind that a quarter-kav of bones that come from a spine and skull is more stringent than other limbs and imparts ritual impurity, let the tanna teach this halakha in a manner that presents a greater novelty, by stating: For a quarter-kav of bones that come from the spine and the skull.

Scroll To Top