Nazir 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: Come and hear:

that the measure was received as a tradition:

It is written in the passage concerning the eight creeping creatures: “And these are impure for you among the creeping creatures that creep upon the earth, and so on. These are impure for you among all the creeping creatures; anyone who touches them when they are dead shall become impure. And anything upon which some of them falls when they are dead shall become impure, and so on.”

The beraita explains that there appear to be two contradictory verses here:

For had Scripture stated only: “Anyone who touches

them

when they are dead shall become impure,”

one might have thought

that a person would become impure only when he touched

all of them,

meaning, an intact creeping creature. Therefore,

the verse states: “And anything upon which

them

some of them

falls when they are dead shall become impure,” which implies that it is not necessary to touch an intact creeping creature. Thus, from the wording “some of them,” one learns that it is not necessary to touch an intact creeping creature.

But

if

Scripture had stated only

“some of them,”

one might have thought

that even if one touched

part of them,

meaning, a creeping creature that is not intact, he would become impure. Therefore,

the verse states:

“them,”

which implies that he must touch an intact creeping creature. Thus, from the wording “them,” one learns that he does not become impure until he touches an intact creeping creature.

If so,

how

are these two verses to be reconciled?

Rather, this is what Scripture stated: He does not become impure

until he touches part of them that is equivalent to all of it,

meaning, even if he touched part of a creeping creature, he becomes impure, provided that the part has the measure of any amount of an intact creeping creature—

And the Sages determined

that this measure is

the size of a lentil, since the skink

which is one of the eight creeping creatures

begins its formation at the size of a lentil.

Therefore, if one touched even a non-intact creeping creature whose size is that of a skink at the beginning of its formation, namely, the size of a lentil, the one who touched it becomes impure.

It

follows from this that since the Sages determined the measure as the entire size of the skink, including its legs and horns—and even though it would live if its legs and horns were cut off—it follows that:

The measure is a received tradition, and anything missing from the creature—even something without which it can live—is considered lacking the required measure and does not impart impurity. The same applies with regard to eating.

The measure was received as a tradition,

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

He said—

Rav Shemaya rejected this proof:

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

meaning, the Sages determined the measure according to the entire skink, including its horns and legs, only because if it did not have this measure, its soul would not depart; for no skink at the beginning of its formation is smaller than a lentil.

But where

its soul

has already departed,

and once its legs have been cut off it is alive,

[it is] not

nevertheless

necessary for you to ask

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

We learned in the Mishna: “For these sources of impurity, the nazirite shaves,” and so on:

the spinal column and the skull:

spinal column and skull

We also learned in the Mishna in Oholot: “These impart impurity through a tent, and so on: the spinal column and the skull”:

The members of the academy raised a dilemma

concerning the interpretation of these two Mishnayot:

Do we

teach the bones of the spinal column and skull

as one unit,

teaching

that they impart impurity through a tent and that the nazirite shaves because of them?

Or perhaps, either

the bones of the

spinal column or

the bones of the

skull

are what we teach, that they impart impurity through a tent and that the nazirite shaves because of them?

Rava said: Come and hear

that we teach: either a spinal column or a skull:

For it was taught in a beraita:

A spinal column from which most of the ribs

were broken,

that were attached to it,

the ribs,

is

therefore

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 disjointed,

it is

impure because of the grave,

meaning, the grave combines it into a whole, as this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

It is therefore implied that

the reason is that he broke

the ribs attached to the spinal column;

but if he did not break

them, it is

impure

even when it is a spinal column alone.

It

follows from this: either a spinal column or a skull is taught.

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

We reject this:

Does it teach

[meaning, did we learn in the beraita]

“but if he did not break them, it is impure”

when it is alone, without a skull?!

For one can say that the beraita is discussing a spinal column that has a skull with it, and

this teaches us

the beraita

that when he broke

the spinal column, it is

pure,

but indeed, if he did not break it, it is impure and imparts impurity together with the skull accompanying it—

And

however,

the other matter—

meaning, a complete spinal column whose ribs were not broken and that has no skull with it—

you must still ask

[you must raise the doubt] whether it imparts impurity.

Come and hear

that we teach: either a spinal column or a skull:

For it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Six matters

—they are explained below one by one, and one of them is a spinal column and skull originating from two corpses—

Rabbi Akiva deems them impure

through a tent, and the nazirite shaves because of them,

but the Sages deem them pure, and Rabbi Akiva retracted

and conceded to the Sages.

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

—by which a nazirite had become impure through 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 open air

of the synagogue, meaning, in a place without a roof over it, so that it would not impart impurity through a tent to those entering there,

and Theodosius the physician entered, together with all the physicians

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 no

in this chest

a spinal column from one corpse, and there is no

here

a skull from one corpse !

nazirite shaves because of it.

On the strength of their words, they declared pure the nazirite who had become impure through that chest.

It is therefore implied that

the reason is that there is no spinal column from one corpse

[specifically because there is no spinal column from one corpse] and no skull from one corpse;

but if there is

[if there is]

either a spinal column or a skull from one corpse

[from one corpse], the

nazirite shaves because of it.

Meaning: If you should say that both a spinal column and a skull are required, then if the spinal column came from one corpse and the skull from another corpse, it would not impart impurity, just as a spinal column from two corpses does not impart impurity. If so, why did they need to specify that there was neither one nor the other? They should have said only: There is no spinal column and skull from one corpse.

If so,

it follows from this:

“Either a spinal column or a skull”

is what we teach.

We reject this: It cannot be proved from here, because

“It is not necessary”

he said

[Theodosius and the physicians with him spoke in the form of “not only”]:

“It is not necessary

[it is not only that]

a spinal column and skull from one corpse—

there is none

[there is none in the chest]—

but even a spinal column from one corpse or a skull from one corpse—

there is none.”

Come and hear—

that a spinal column and skull are what we teach—

from the enumeration

[from the list] stated in the aforementioned beraita:

For later in the beraita we learned:

And what are the six matters

over which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagreed,

with Rabbi Akiva deeming them impure

through a tent and shaving because of them,

and the Sages deeming them pure:

1.

A limb from a corpse that came from two corpses.

2.

And a limb from a living person that came from two people.

3.

And half

a kav of bones that came from two corpses.

And see all this in the following note.

that was divided into two.

6.

And the spinal column and the skull

that came from two corpses.

4.

A barley-grain-sized bone

from one corpse

that was divided into two.

5.

And the spinal column and the skull

that came from two corpses.