Nazir 52b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara proves from the enumeration of “six” matters in which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagreed that a spine and a skull together are what render impure:

And if it enters your mind that [the Mishna says] either a spine or a skull

we learned,

these are seven!

For “a spine originating from two corpses” and “a skull originating from two corpses” should be counted as two, and it follows that altogether there are seven matters in which Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagreed?!

And we answer: Actually, we learned either a spine or a skull, and indeed they disagreed about seven matters; and one must explain in four ways why it was said in the beraita “six matters”:

And

a sign

for the four ways: a.

individual;

b.

which is;

c.

shaved;

d.

and one.

a.

For when it teaches,

that is, who are those included in the enumeration:

wherever many disagreed with him

—with Rabbi Akiva—

[they are] many

[only those matters in which the many disagreed with him],

to exclude

[to exclude] “

a bone the size of a barley-grain

that was divided into two,”

with which an individual disagreed

[it was an individual tanna who disagreed with him], and therefore it is not included in the enumeration.

For it was taught: A bone the size of a barley-grain that was divided into two: Rabbi Akiva deems it impure, and Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri deems it pure.

b.

And if you wish, say:

[who are those included in the enumeration] only

matters of a corpse

[matters in which they disagreed concerning impurities of a corpse], but

matters of a living person,

namely, a limb from a living person,

it does not teach.

c.

And if you wish, say: When it teaches, it means wherever

[only those matters are included in the enumeration]

for which a nazirite shaves when they are in his tent; to exclude a bone the size of a barley-grain, for which he does not

shave when it is in his tent.

d.

And if you wish, say: When it teaches, it means wherever he retracted

[where Rabbi Akiva retracted], as we learned in the beraita: “Rabbi Akiva deems six matters impure, and so on, ‘and Rabbi Akiva retracted’”;

to exclude a quarter-log of blood

originating from two corpses,

for he did not retract

[Rabbi Akiva did not retract].

d

Behold,

Rabbi [Yehuda ha-Nasi] said to Bar Kappara

his student:

Do not teach a quarter-log of blood among the retractions

[do not count it among the matters from which Rabbi Akiva retracted],

for:

a.

It is a teaching arranged in Rabbi Akiva’s mouth:

A quarter-log of blood from two corpses renders impure.

b.

And furthermore,

for

the verse supports him:

as it is stated:

“And he shall not come upon any souls of the dead”

[the High Priest].

And since Scripture said “souls” and not “soul,” we learn that he shall not come even upon a quarter-log of blood originating from two corpses, for “dead” implies a quarter-log of blood upon which a person’s life depends, while “souls” implies that this quarter-log of blood originated from two corpses.

Rabbi Shimon says, to uphold Rabbi’s words:

Until the day of Rabbi Akiva’s death he would deem impure

a quarter-log of blood originating from two corpses,

but whether after he died he retracted

Rabbi Akiva—this

I do not know.

A tanna taught: Rabbi Shimon’s teeth became black

from

his fasts,

that is, Rabbi Shimon sat many days in a fast over this statement that he had made, because it is not proper conduct to speak about his teacher in this manner.

Come and hear

that we learned either a spine or a skull:

For it was taught: Beit Shammai say: “

A quarter

of a kav

of bones”

that the Sages said renders impure—this is when it comes

from the bones

or from two or from three

limbs.

It must be explained in two ways:

The first: That is, every bone of the bones of the limbs of the corpse renders impure when it contains a quarter-kav.

The second: A quarter-kav of bones that comes from any bones in the corpse, “provided” that they are from two or three limbs; but when they come from the bone of one limb, they do not render impure even at a quarter-kav.

And Beit Hillel say:

The quarter-kav of bones that they said means

a quarter from the body

[the body]

from the majority of the structure or from the majority of the number,

that is: a quarter-kav of bones that come from the majority of the body’s structure or from the majority of the body’s number—and, for example, he removed a little from each one until he brought them to a quarter-kav—it is this that renders impure; but a quarter-kav that comes from the remaining bones does not render impure.

Rabbi Yehoshua said:

I can make

I can explain their words so that they will be

the words of Beit Shammai and the words of Beit Hillel together,

and there will be no disagreement between them.

For it can be explained that Beit Shammai taught us a quarter-kav from bones of the majority of the structure, while Beit Hillel taught us a quarter-kav from bones of the majority of the number; and so I shall explain:

That Beit Shammai

s

ay: “

From two or from three,”

that is:

Either

bones that come

from two lower legs

of the corpse

and

f

rom one thigh,

and since the lower legs are exceedingly thin, they count as only one, and together with the large thigh this is “from two.”

Or

bones that come

from two thighs and one lower leg,

and this is “from three”—

And therefore bones coming from these render impure at a quarter-kav:

since

they are

the majority of a person’s structure from

t

he height

of the person.

And Beit Hillel say: From the body, or from the majority of the structure or from the majority of the number,

that is: even bones coming from the majority of the number render impure at a quarter-kav, like bones coming from the majority of the structure—

since they are—

the majority of the number of his bones—

from the joints of the hands and feet,

that is: in the joints of the hands and feet one finds the majority of a person’s bones without their being the majority of his structure.

Shammai says: Even one bone

when it comes

from the spine or from the skull

renders impure in a tent, even though it does not contain a quarter-kav.

And it is logical to the Gemara that the Sages who disagreed with Shammai concerning the spine and skull and did not render impure with one bone from it did not disagree with him so far as to say that they do not render impure until both of them are together.

If so, learn from this that we learned “either a spinal column or a skull.”

And if so, learn from it: We learned either a spine or a skull.

And we reject this:

Shammai is different, for he is much more stringent

[he is exceedingly stringent], and only according to his view either a spine or a skull is sufficient; but the Sages who disagreed with him and maintain that a bone from the spine and skull does not render impure by itself also disagreed with him in this, that a spine and a skull are required together.

The Gemara adds:

Let us resolve from it

by inversion:

The reason of Shammai is that he is stringent,

that is: either a spine or a skull is sufficient only for the stringent Shammai, for he explicitly said: “from the spine or from the skull”;

but the Sages, who said “a spine and a skull” and did not say “either or,”

it implies: Until there is a spine and a skull

complete together.

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot resolve it, because

the Sages disagreed with Shammai only concerning one bone that comes

[that comes]

from the spine and the skull,

for they maintain that it does not render impure in a tent, unlike Shammai.

But where it exists

the spine and skull

as such

[when they are complete], they too agree that they render impure; in this they did not disagree with Shammai, and they agree that

even one of them

[one of them] renders impure, although they did not state so explicitly.

a. Just as bones of the majority of the number and the structure render impure when they are complete, or when there is a measure of a quarter-kav of bones coming from them, so too the spine and skull, which render impure when they are complete: if there is a quarter-kav of bones coming from them, they render impure.

B. It is stated in our Mishna below, 54a, that the nazirite does not shave for their tenting over a quarter-kav of bones.

Rami bar Hama raised a question: a quarter

of a kav of

bones

that come

from

the

spine and skull,

for which he becomes impure in the same manner as for a quarter-kav of bones that come from the majority of the number or the structure,

what

is its law with regard to shaving?

Is it also the case with the bones of the spine and skull that the halakha was accepted that, with regard to shaving, a quarter-kav is insufficient, but half a kav is required?

And the Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

When it teaches

in our Mishna that he does not shave except for

half a kav of bones

“for their contact, their carrying, and their tenting,” only

where there are bones from his other limbs

when the bones come from his other limbs, which are less stringent, for they do not impart impurity through tenting except when they constitute the majority of the structure or the majority of the number, or come from them; therefore, he does not shave for them—when they come from the majority of the number and the structure—except in the measure of half a kav.

But

when the bones come

from

the

spine and

the

skull, which are more stringent, [the spine and skull are more stringent, for they impart impurity when whole or broken, even when they are not from the majority of the number and the structure] —

perhaps it should be said that

even

with

a quarter

kav of

bones,

in the measure through which he becomes impure by them, he shall shave.

Or perhaps it is no different.

Both the former and the latter do not cause him to shave for them except in the measure of half a kav.

Rava said: ta shma

from what we learned in our Mishna: the nazirite shaves for

the spine and skull.

the spine and skull.

For Rava assumed that there is no spine and skull in which there is not a quarter-kav of bones, and that one shaves only for a spine and skull in which there is a quarter-kav of bones.

But if it enters your mind that a quarter of the bones that come from the spine and skull

that come from them and are not whole

is more stringent

than other bones, and the nazirite shaves for it even at a quarter-kav, why did the tanna need to teach “the spine and skull,” which implies a whole spine and skull?

Let him teach: for a quarter of bones that comes from the spine

and skull!?