Nazir 52a — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: ta shma

that the measure was learned as a tradition:

It is written in the section of Shemini [Leviticus 11:29]: “And this is the impure one for you among the creeping creatures that creep upon the earth, etc. These are the impure ones for you among all the creeping creatures; whoever touches them when they are dead shall become impure. And everything upon which any of them falls when they are dead shall become impure, etc.”

And the beraita explains that there are seemingly two contradictory verses here:

For if the verse had stated only: “Whoever touches

them

when they are dead shall become impure,”

one might have thought

that the one who touches would become impure only when he touched

all of them,

that is, an entire creeping creature. Therefore,

the verse says: “And everything upon which

any

of them

falls when they are dead shall become impure,” which implies that it is not necessary to touch an entire creeping creature; and it is thus learned from the wording “of them” that it is not necessary to touch an entire creeping creature.

And

if

the verse had stated only

“

of them,”

one might have thought

that even if he touched

a part of them, that is, a creeping creature that is not whole, he would become impure. Therefore,

the verse says: “

them,”

which implies that he must touch an entire creeping creature; and it is thus learned from the wording “them” that he does not become impure until he touches an entire creeping creature:

And if so,

how

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Rather, this is what the verse said: He does not become impure

until he touches a part of them that is like all of them,

that is, even if he touched part of a creeping creature, he becomes impure, provided that there is in it some measure of an entire creeping creature.

And the Sages measured

that measure

as the size of a lentil, since the snail

is one of the eight creeping creatures,

and its initial formation is the size of a lentil;

and therefore, whoever touches even a creeping creature that is not whole, whose size is like that of a snail at the beginning of its formation, namely, the size of a lentil, becomes impure through touching it.

It follows,

learn from it,

that since the Sages measured the measure by the entire size of the snail, together with its legs and horns, even though if its legs and horns were cut off it would live, it follows, then:

The measure was learned as a tradition,

and anything lacking from the creature, even something without which it can live, is considered as though the measure is lacking, and it does not impart impurity. The same applies with regard to eating.

He said—

Rav Shimiya rejected this:

When we require the measure of a lentil, it is where a soul has not yet departed from it,

that is, the Sages measured the measure according to the entire snail together with its horns and legs only because, if it did not have this measure, a soul would not yet have departed from it, for there is no snail at the beginning of its formation that is smaller than a lentil.

But where

it has already

had a soul depart from it,

and once its legs have been cut off it lives,

it is not

still

a question for you

whether it has the status of a creature, for it possesses significance even though its legs have been cut off, since it can live without them.

We learned in the Mishna: “For these impurities the nazirite shaves, etc.,”

the spinal column and the skull:

spinal column and skull

We also learned in a Mishna in Oholot [chapter 2]: “These impart impurity through a tent, etc.: the spinal column and the skull”:

The members of the academy raised a question

regarding the interpretation of these two Mishnayot:

Do we

learn

the bones of the

spinal column and skull

as one, that they impart impurity through a tent and the nazirite shaves for them?

Or perhaps, either

the bones of the

spinal column or

the bones of the

skull

is what we learn, that they impart impurity through a tent and the nazirite shaves for them?

Rava said: ta shma

that we learn either the spinal column or the skull:

For it was taught in a beraita:

A spinal column from which the majority of the ribs

have been broken

that were attached to it,

the ribs,

that were in it,

it is

pure

from imparting impurity through a tent, even though all the ribs are with it in the tent.

And

when the spinal column is

in a grave—

even if it is broken or disassembled,

it is

impure because of the grave,

that is, the grave joins it together, for this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

It is implied:

The reason is because he removed

the ribs from the spinal column;

had he not removed them,

it would be

impure

even if it were the spinal column alone.

It follows,

learn from it: either the spinal column or the skull is taught.

pure; but if they were not scraped away, it is impure and imparts impurity together with the skull accompanying it—

And we reject this:

Does it teach

[that is, did we learn in the beraita]

that had he not removed them it would be impure

when it is alone, without a skull?!

For it can be said that the beraita is dealing with a spinal column that has a skull with it, and

this it teaches us

the beraita:

When he removed

the ribs from the spinal column, it is

pure,

but indeed, if he did not remove them, it is impure and imparts impurity together with the skull that is with it—

And

however,

the other—

that is, a complete spinal column from which the ribs were not removed and which has no skull with it—it is still

a question for you

[you must be in doubt] whether it imparts impurity.

Come and hear

that we learn either the spinal column or the skull:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Six matters—

they are explained below one by one, and one of them is: a spinal column and a skull that come from two dead persons—

Rabbi Akiva declares impure

through a tent, and the nazirite shaves for it,

but the Sages declare pure, and Rabbi Akiva retracted

and conceded to the Sages.

And there was an incident in which they brought a chest full of bones—

through which a nazirite had become impure in a tent—

to the synagogue of the coppersmiths

[coppersmiths], in order to examine whether that chest contained bones that impart impurity through a tent—

And they placed it

that chest

in the air

of the synagogue, that is, in a place over which there was no roof, so that it would not impart impurity through a tent to those entering there,

and Theodosius the physician and all the physicians entered

with him, and

the physicians examined the chest and

said:

The reason is that there is no spinal column from a single corpse—

There is not here

in this chest

a spinal column from one dead person, and there is no

here

a skull from one dead person !

nazirite shaves because of it.

And on the basis of their words they declared pure the nazirite who had become impure through that chest.

It is implied:

The reason is that there is no spinal column from one

[dead person specifically, because there is no spinal column from one dead person] and no skull from one dead person;

but if there is

[one],

either a spinal column or a skull from one

[dead person], then the

nazirite shaves for it.

That is, if you say that we require a spinal column and a skull, then if the spinal column was from this dead person and the skull from another dead person, it would not impart impurity, just as a spinal column from two dead persons does not. If so, why did they need to explain that there was neither one from this person nor one from that person? They could have merely said: There is no spinal column and skull from one dead person.

If so,

learn from it:

“

Either the spinal column or the skull”

is what we

learn. And we reject this: It cannot be proved from here, for

he said

[in the manner of “not only” said Theodosius and the physicians with him]:

Not only

[is it not enough that]

a spinal column and skull from one dead person—

there is none

[in the chest],

but even a spinal column from one dead person, or a skull from one dead person—

there is none.

Come and hear—

that a spinal column and skull is what we learn—

from the enumeration

[from the number] stated in the aforementioned beraita:

For further on in the beraita we learned:

And what are the six matters

over which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disputed,

that Rabbi Akiva declares impure

through a tent and they shave for it,

but the Sages declare pure:

1.

Concerning a limb from a dead person that came from two dead persons.

2.

And concerning a limb from a living person that came from two human beings.

3.

And concerning half

a kav of bones that came from two dead persons.

And see all this in the following note.

4.

And concerning a quarter-log of blood

that came from two

[two dead persons].

5.

Concerning a barley-sized bone

from one dead person

that was divided into two.

6.

And the spinal column and the skull

that came from two dead persons.