Nazir 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

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 one impure:

And if it enters your mind that we learned: either a spine or a skull

—

there are seven!

For one should count “a spine deriving from two corpses” and “a skull deriving from two corpses” as two separate matters, resulting in a total of 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 with regard to seven matters. The statement in the beraita that there are “six matters” can be explained in four ways:

and

a mnemonic for the four explanations is: a.

one;

b. that;

c.

which is;

d.

he shaved;

e.

and one.

a.

When it teaches, that is, who are included in the enumeration:

those matters

in every case where the many disagreed with him—

with Rabbi Akiva—

the majority [the matters in which the majority disagreed with him alone],

only those matters over which the majority disputed him;

to exclude [to leave out] “

that is, excluding: “

a bone the size of a barley-grain

that was divided into two,”

with regard to which only one disagreed with him [a single tanna disagreed with him],

and therefore it is not included in the enumeration.

As it was taught in a beraita: 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:

only the following are included in the enumeration:

matters associated with the dead [matters concerning which they disagreed with regard to the ritual impurity of the dead]. However,

matters over which they dispute concerning the ritual impurity of a corpse; but

matters associated with the living,

namely, a limb severed from a living person,

are not taught.

c.

And if you wish, say: When it teaches, it means every case [only those matters are included in the enumeration]

only those matters are included in the count

over which a nazirite shaves when he is under the same tent with it, to exclude a bone the size of a barley-grain, for which he does not shave when he is under the same tent with it.

because he was under the same tent as it.

d.

And if you wish, say: When it teaches, it means every case in which he retracted [from which Rabbi Akiva retracted], as we learned in the beraita: “Six matters Rabbi Akiva deems impure, and so on,” and “Rabbi Akiva retracted”

;

to exclude a quarter-log of blood

that derives from two corpses,

from which he did not retract [Rabbi Akiva did not retract].

that Rabbi Akiva did not retract his opinion.

d.

It is

that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara,

his student:

Do not teach a quarter-log of blood among the cases of retraction [do not include it among the matters from which Rabbi Akiva retracted],

do not count it among the matters concerning which Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion,

for:

a.

It is an established teaching in Rabbi Akiva’s mouth:

A quarter-log of blood from two corpses imparts impurity.

b.

Furthermore,

for

the verse supports him,

as it is stated:

“And he shall not come upon any dead persons”

[the High Priest]. Since the verse says “persons,” in the plural, and not “person,” in the singular, we learn that he may not come even upon a quarter-log of blood deriving from two corpses. For “a dead person” indicates a quarter-log of blood upon which a person’s life depends, while “persons” indicates that this quarter-log of blood derives from two corpses.

And because the verse says “persons,” in the plural, and not “person,” we learn that he may not come into contact even with a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses. For “a dead person” indicates a quarter-log of blood upon which a person’s life depends, while “persons” indicates that this quarter-log of blood comes from two corpses.

Rabbi Shimon says,

to uphold Rabbi’s statement:

Until the day of Rabbi Akiva’s death, he deemed impure

a quarter-log of blood deriving from two corpses, but

whether he retracted after his death—

Rabbi Akiva—

I do not know.

A tanna taught: Rabbi Shimon’s teeth grew black

because of

his fasts, that is, Rabbi Shimon fasted for many days over this statement that he had made, because it is not proper to speak of one’s teacher in such a manner.

meaning that Rabbi Shimon fasted for many days because of this statement he had made, since it is improper to speak about one’s teacher in such a manner.

Come and hear that we learned “a spine or a skull”:

that we learned “either a spinal column or a skull”:

As it was taught in a beraita: Beit Shammai say: “

A quarter-kav

of

bones,” which the Sages said imparts impurity, means when it comes

which the Sages said imparts ritual impurity, means when it comes

from the bones

of either two or three

limbs.

This can be explained in two ways:

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

The second: A quarter-kav of bones deriving from any bones in the corpse, “provided” that they come from two or three limbs. But when they come from the bone of a single limb, they do not impart impurity even when they amount to a quarter-kav.

And Beit Hillel say:

The quarter-kav of bones that they mentioned means

a quarter-kav from the body [the body]

the body,

from the majority of the structure or from the majority of the number, that is: a quarter-kav of bones deriving from most of the body’s structure or from most of the body’s number—for example, when a small amount is taken from each one until they total a quarter-kav—that is what imparts impurity. But a quarter-kav deriving from the remaining bones does not impart impurity.

that is, a quarter of a kab of bones coming from most of the body’s structure or from most of the number of its bones—for example, a small amount cut from each bone until the total reaches a quarter of a kab—is what imparts impurity. But a quarter of a kab coming from the remaining bones does not impart impurity.

Rabbi Yehoshua said:

I can make,

I can explain their words so that

the words of Beit Shammai and the words of Beit Hillel are in agreement,

and there is no disagreement between them.

For one can explain that Beit Shammai taught the law of a quarter-kav of bones from the majority of the structure, while Beit Hillel taught the law of a quarter-kav of bones from the majority of the number. And I will explain it as follows:

Beit Shammai

the

say: “

From two or from three,” that is:

meaning:

Either

bones deriving

from two lower legs

of the corpse

and

from

one thigh, and since the lower legs are very thin, they count as only one, while together with the large thigh they constitute “from two.”

since the lower-leg bones are very thin, they count only as one, and together with the large thigh bone, this is “from two.”

Or

bones deriving

from two thighs and one lower leg, which is “from three”—

which is “from three”—

And therefore bones deriving from these impart impurity when they amount to a quarter-kav:

since

they are

the majority of a person’s structure from

the

the 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 deriving from the majority of the number impart impurity through a quarter-kav, like bones deriving from the majority of the structure—

since they are—

the majority of his bones by number—

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 by number without their constituting the majority of his structure.

Shammai says: Even a single bone

when it comes

from the spine or from the skull

imparts impurity through a tent, even though it does not contain a quarter-kav.

It stands to reason to the Gemara that the Sages who disagreed with Shammai concerning the spine and skull, and did not deem a single bone from either of them impure, did not disagree with him so completely as to say that they do not impart impurity unless both are present together.

If so, conclude from this: We learned “a spine or a skull.”

And we reject this:

Shammai is different, for he is far more stringent [he is exceedingly stringent]. Only according to his view is either a spine or a skull sufficient. But the Sages who disagreed with him and held that a bone from the spine or skull does not impart impurity by itself also disagreed with him in this respect: that a spine and a skull are required together.

he is exceedingly stringent; only according to his opinion is either a spinal column or a skull sufficient. But the Sages who dispute him and maintain that a bone from the spinal column or skull does not impart impurity by itself also dispute him in this regard, and require a spinal column and a skull together.

The Gemara adds:

Let us resolve it from this in the opposite direction:

in the opposite direction:

The reason is that Shammai is stringent,

that is: either a spine or a skull is sufficient only according to 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 “or or” —this indicates:

until there is both a spine and a skull

intact and together.

And we reject this:

No,

do not resolve it, for

the Sages disagreed with Shammai only with regard to a single bone that comes [derives]

that comes

from the spine and the skull,

as they hold that it does not impart impurity through a tent, unlike Shammai.

But where it is present—

the spine and skull—

in their own form [when they are intact], even they agree that they impart impurity, and in this they did not disagree with Shammai; they agree that

when they are complete, even they agree that they impart impurity; in this they did not dispute Shammai, and they agree that

even one of them [one of them] imparts impurity, although they did not state this explicitly.

a. Just as bones constituting the majority by number and the majority by structure impart impurity when they are intact, or when there is a measure of a quarter-kav of bones deriving from them, so too a spine and a skull, which impart impurity when intact, impart impurity when there is a quarter-kav of bones deriving from them.

1. Just as bones constituting most of the number or structure impart impurity when they are intact, or when there is a quarter of a kab of bones that come from them, so too, although a spinal column and skull impart impurity when intact, if there is a quarter of a kab of bones that come from them, they impart impurity.

b. We learned in the Mishna below, on 54a, that the nazir does not shave for the tent impurity of a quarter-kav of bones.

Rami bar Hama asked: A quarter-kav

of

bones

that come

from

the

spine and skull,

which impart impurity in the same manner as a quarter-kav of bones that come from the majority of the number or structure,

what

is their law with regard to shaving?

Does the halakha that, with regard to shaving, a quarter-kav is insufficient and half a kav is required apply even to the bones of the spine and skull?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the question:

When it was taught

in our Mishna that he shaves only for

half a kav of bones

“for contact with them, for carrying them, and for their tent,” this applies only

where they are from the rest of his limbs

when the bones come from the rest of his limbs, which are less stringent, as they impart impurity in a tent only when they constitute the majority of the structure or the majority of the number, or come from such a majority; therefore, he does not shave for them—when they come from the majority of the number or structure—unless they amount to half a kav.

But

when the bones come

from

the

spine and

the

skull, which are more stringent,

as the spine and skull impart impurity when intact or broken, even when they do not constitute the majority of the number or structure — perhaps

even

a

quarter

of a kav

of bones,

the measure at which they impart impurity, is sufficient for him to shave.

Or perhaps it is no different.

Neither one nor the other permits shaving except at the measure of half a kav.

Rava said: Come and hear

from what we learned in our Mishna, that the nazir shaves for

“the spine and skull.”

the spine and skull.

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

And if it enters your mind that a quarter-kav of bones that comes from the spine and skull

which come from them and are not intact

is more stringent

more stringent than other bones—and the nazir shaves for it even at a quarter-kav—why did the tanna need to teach “the spine and skull,” implying an intact spine and skull?

Let him teach: For a quarter-kav of bones that comes from the spine

and skull!?