Nazir 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: What is a corpse that has rekav?:

A corpse

that decayed without anything else being mixed into it at the time of its decay, namely: a.

that was buried

naked

and no decay from the corpse’s garment was mixed into it at the time of its decay; b. and

in a marble coffin

which does not decay,

or

the corpse was

upon a stone floor

that does not wear away—

This is a corpse that has rekav!

But if

it was buried in its garment

which decays together with it and becomes mixed with its decay, or if it was buried

in a wooden coffin

which decays,

or upon a floor of bricks

which wears away,

this is a corpse that does not have rekav,

since at the time it decayed, decay or particles from the deterioration of something else were mixed with it.

Ulla said: There is no rekav except that which comes from the flesh

and from the sinews and from the bones,

meaning that the rekav must derive from all of them.

Rava raised an objection to Ulla

from that which was taught:

Decay that comes from the flesh

alone is

pure.

And it follows:

if it comes from the bone

alone, it is

impure, even though there is no flesh,

as there is no flesh there

? And we answer:

Say this instead

[This is how you should teach the beraita]:

Decay that comes from the flesh

is

pure until there is a bone in the flesh.

And we challenge this: Even if we interpret the beraita in this manner, it is still difficult: Ultimately,

there are no sinews

—that is, the beraita did not state that rekav is only that which comes from the sinews

! And we answer:

It is impossible for there to be flesh and bones without sinews,

since wherever there are flesh and bone, there must necessarily be sinews.

Rav Shmuel bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Two corpses that were buried together become galgalin

for one another

[one negates the other’s rekav], since the decay of one corpse that becomes mixed with the other at the time of decay is like something else that becomes mixed with it, and it is not rekav.

Rabbi Natan bar Rabbi Oshaya raised an objection

from that which was taught:

Decay that comes from two corpses

is

impure,

and it was initially understood that they decayed together. This is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that rekav of this kind does not impart impurity

. He said

—he answered—

Rava:

Rava:

What are we dealing with here? It is a case, for example,

where he buried this one separately and that one separately,

so that the decay of one did not become mixed with that of the other at the time of decay, but the impurity came from half a handful from this one and half a handful from that one—

and

even if

they decayed and reached

both together

a full handful

of

decay.

Tosafot explained that Rava's novelty here is that although one might suspect that that rekav is from the heel, nevertheless it is impure; as will be clarified further in the Gemara below, this is the novelty.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

He cut the hair

of a corpse

and

afterward

buried it with him, it becomes for him

the hair

a galgalin, since hair that was cut is like another substance that became mixed into the corpse’s decay, and there is no rekav.

because hair that was cut off is like another thing that mixes with the decay of the corpse, and here there is not rekav.

We learned there

in tractate Oholot:

Anything that is in a corpse

is

impure

and imparts impurity even when it separates from the corpse; the skin, too, imparts impurity when it separates from the corpse,

except for the teeth, the hair, and the nail

which do not impart impurity when they separate from the corpse.

And at the time of their attachment

to the corpse

all of them are impure,

meaning that they become an adjunct to impurity: one who touches them or overshadows them is as though he touched or overshadowed the corpse, and he is impure.

He raised a dilemma

—Ḥizkiya was uncertain—

Ḥizkiya:

Hair that is destined to be shaved,

before he died, as when his hair had grown excessively long, or

a nail that is destined to be cut,

and he died before he shaved his hair and before he cut the nail,

what

is their status with regard to impurity?

Do we say: Anything destined to be cut is considered as though

it were

already cut,

and therefore

it is considered

as detached and does not become an adjunct to impurity?

Or perhaps: At present, they are attached

and until they are cut they are an adjunct to impurity.

And we challenge this:

Let him resolve

Ḥizkiya’s dilemma

from Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

who said: “He cut his hair and buried it with him, it becomes a galgalin for him.” The Gemara understands that Rabba bar bar Ḥana stated his ruling even with regard to hair that was destined to be cut while he was alive, and nevertheless:

The reason is because he cut it,

and the hair became a galgalin for him;

but if he did not cut it

and the hair was still attached,

it does not

become a galgalin for him. We have therefore learned that as long as the hair has not been cut, it is considered like the body of the corpse and does not become a galgalin for it; likewise, it is considered an adjunct to impurity.

And we reject this:

This is what

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

If he

cut

the hair,

it is a galgalin

for the corpse; but if he still

did not cut it, the dilemma remains for you,

meaning: Rabba bar bar Ḥana himself was uncertain about the case in which he did not cut it, and therefore he stated the case of one who cut it. If so, when he did not cut it, the uncertainty remains unresolved.

He raised a dilemma

—Rabbi Yirmeya was uncertain—

Rabbi Yirmeya:

Decay that comes from the heel

—of the corpse—where there is flesh that was already “dead flesh” during his lifetime,

what

is its status with regard to imparting impurity on account of rekav?

The Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

Do we say:

When we learned

[when this halakha was transmitted]

that decay comes from the entire corpse,

meaning that rekav comes only from a limb that died together with the entire body,

but

decay

that comes from the heel,

which died before the rest of the body,

does not

impart impurity on account of rekav?

Or perhaps: It makes no difference,

and even “dead flesh” has the law of rekav, just like flesh that died together with the death of the corpse?

Come and hear

that even decay that comes from the heel imparts impurity, from that

which Rabbi Natan bar Rabbi Oshaya taught

in a beraita that says:

Decay that comes from two corpses

is

impure,

and Rava explained above in the Gemara: It is a case where they decayed and reached only one full handful of rekav.

And if it enters your mind

that decay

that comes from the heel does not

impart impurity, then here too it should not impart impurity, since

perhaps here it comes by way of the heel

and perhaps there it comes by way of the heel—

Tosafot explained the phrase "perhaps": it is not necessary that if one full teru'ud remained which has some from the heel, for it may be that the decay of the heel was consumed by worms, and the decay before us is from the remainder of the body.

That is, since only a full handful of decay from the two bodies remained, there is concern that it contains some of the heel of one or some of the heel of the other; so why does it impart impurity

? And we reject this: Indeed,

if the entire corpse decayed and it comes by way of the heel,

if the entire corpse decayed, including the heel,

so too,

there is no reason to doubt that it imparts impurity even though it contains some of the heel, since the fact that it is intrinsically “dead flesh” is not a deficiency, as the Gemara demonstrated.

Rather, this

case of Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma concerns

a case in which

it did not

decay

except

one limb, and it comes

by way of the heel,

meaning: The flesh of the corpse in the heel decayed together with only the limb adjacent to it. This is what Rabbi Yirmeya was uncertain about:

What

is its status with regard to rekav—

The reason for his uncertainty is that one might say that since it is dead flesh, it and the limb adjacent to it decayed; or one might say that in a corpse that decayed for this reason, the law of rekav was not transmitted.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved!

He raised a dilemma

—Rabbi Yirmeya was uncertain—

Rabbi Yirmeya:

A fetus in a woman’s womb:

Does it

become—

the fetus for the mother and the mother for the fetus—

a galgalin

to negate the law of rekav of one for the other, as with two corpses that were buried together, each of which becomes a galgalin for the other,

or not?

Rabbi Yirmeya explains the sides of the uncertainty:

Do we say:

Since the master said: “

A fetus is a thigh of its mother,”

and it is considered one of her limbs,

therefore

even with regard to rekav,

it is her body

[it is considered part of the mother’s body],

and it does not become a galgalin

and they impart impurity on account of rekav?

Or perhaps: Since ultimately

it was

to emerge

from its mother, it is as though it had already

separated from her

[and they became galgalin for one another].

And if you would say: A fetus,

since

it will ultimately emerge,

it is as though it had already

separated from her—