## Nazir Daf 51b

###### Nazir 51b:1
[Nazir 51b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:1)

שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אִיתְּצַר — כִּי גוּפַהּ דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעָלְמָא קָאָתֵי — לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
with regard to **semen in** a dead **woman’s womb. What is** the *halakha* in this case? Does it form a mixture with respect to the woman’s body? The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: **Do we say** that **since no** fetus **was formed** from the semen, it is **considered like her body? Or, perhaps** one should argue that **since it comes from outside,** it is **not** considered part of her body.


###### Nazir 51b:2
[Nazir 51b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:2)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: פִּירְשָׁהּ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מִקַּיְימָא בִּדְלָא אָכְלָה — חַיּוּתָא הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא נָמֵי מֵעָלְמָא אָתֵי? בָּעֵי רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: עוֹרוֹ מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raised** a similar **dilemma:** With regard to **her excrement,** the food waste that remains in a woman’s intestines, **what is** the *halakha*? Once again, the Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that **since she cannot subsist without food it is** considered **her life,** which means that the food left inside her body is part of her and does not form a mixture with the corpse? **Or perhaps this too comes from outside** and is therefore not part of her body, and does form a mixture with her corpse. Similarly, **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, raised a dilemma** concerning a corpse: With regard to **its skin, what is** the *halakha*? **Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ** likewise **raised a dilemma:** With regard to **its phlegm and its spittle, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Nazir 51b:3
[Nazir 51b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָנֵי דְּקָאָמַר הָוֵי גַּלְגַּלִּין, רָקָב דִּמְטַמֵּא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ! דְּאַשְׁקְיֵיהּ מֵי דְקָלִים, וְסַכְיֵא נָשָׁא, וּשְׁלָקוֹ בְּמֵי טְבֶרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said to Rav Pappa: But if it enters your mind** that **all these** cases of **which they spoke** form **a mixture,** under **what circumstances** do **you find** this case of **dust** that **imparts impurity?** Dust from a corpse will always include some components of the aforementioned elements. The Gemara answers: It is possible. For example, **if** someone **was given palm water [*mei dekalim*],** a powerful laxative, **to drink** before he died, **and was rubbed with a depilatory** agent to remove his hair, **and was boiled** after death **in the** hot **waters of Tiberias** until the skin came off, this would remove all matter that is not part of the corpse itself.


###### Nazir 51b:4
[Nazir 51b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: מֵת שֶׁטְּחָנוֹ — אֵין לוֹ רָקָב. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טְחָנוֹ וְחָזַר וְהִרְקִיב, מַהוּ? מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת, וְהָאִיכָּא. אוֹ דִּלְמָא כִּבְרִיָּיתוֹ בָּעִינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We have a tradition** that **a corpse that was ground** into small pieces **has no** *halakha* of **dust. A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If a corpse **was ground** after death **and** the remains **later decayed, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: **Is the *halakha*** of dust of a corpse **only** due to the fact that **there is flesh and sinews and bones, and** all these **are present** in this case, so it is impure? **Or perhaps, we require** the corpse to have decayed from **its initial state,** before it was ground, **and** this is **not** the situation here. As was the case with regard to the previous inquiries, no answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Nazir 51b:5
[Nazir 51b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:5)

תָּנֵי עוּלָּא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מֵת שֶׁחָסַר — אֵין לוֹ רָקָב וְלֹא תְּפוּסָה וְלֹא שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla bar Ḥanina teaches: A corpse that lacks** a part **does not have** the *halakha* of **dust,** which imparts ritual impurity in the amount of a full ladle, **nor** the *halakha* of earth that is **caught [*tefusa*]** and considered part of a corpse. If a deficient corpse is moved, the surrounding earth is not considered part of it and need not be moved together with the body, as must be performed for a whole corpse. **Nor** does the *halakha* of **a graveyard** apply. If three corpses are discovered in close proximity and one of them is deficient in some way, one need not search for more bodies out of concern that the location might have been a cemetery, as must be done if three intact corpses are found. Rather, the bodies are considered isolated corpses.


###### Nazir 51b:6
[Nazir 51b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּמֵת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רוֹב וְרוֹבַע אוֹ מְלֹא תַרְווֹד רָקָב — תֹּאמַר בְּחַי, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לֹא רוֹב, וְלֹא רוֹבַע, וְלֹא מְלֹא תַרְווֹד רָקָב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Eduyyot* 6:3) that addresses the question of whether an olive-bulk of flesh that came from a living person imparts ritual impurity as it would were it to come from a corpse: **No, if you say** that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity **with regard to a corpse, whose** *halakhot* of impurity are stringent, as **the majority** of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, **or a quarter-***kav* of its bones, **or** even **a full ladle of** its **dust** impart impurity, **shall you** also **say** that it imparts impurity **with regard to a living** person, **who does not have** the *halakha* of **the majority** of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, **nor a quarter-***kav*, **nor a full ladle of dust?**


###### Nazir 51b:7
[Nazir 51b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:7)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — דְּאַרְקִיב חַד אֵבֶר, דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי מֵת: אֲפִילּוּ חַד אֵבֶר אִיכָּא רָקָב! מִי קָתָנֵי הָא מֵת? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: שׁוּם מֵת — יֵשׁ לוֹ רָקָב, שׁוּם חַי — אֵין לוֹ רָקָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this passage: **What are the circumstances** of that mishna that deals with a limb from a living person? If you say **that one limb** of a living person **decayed,** and the mishna is indicating **that in the corresponding** situation **with regard to a corpse, there is dust even** from **one limb.** This shows that the *halakha* of dust applies to a corpse that is missing a limb and not just to a complete corpse. The Gemara rejects this argument: **Did** the mishna **teach that this corpse** in that particular case of an isolated limb has the *halakha* of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna **teaches us this: The name,** i.e., the category, **of a corpse has dust.** However, **the name of a living** person **does not have dust.**


###### Nazir 51b:8
[Nazir 51b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:8)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִרְקִיב כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי, וְחָזַר וּמֵת, מַהוּ? כִּי גְּמִירִי רָקָב, דְּאִירְקִיב כְּשֶׁהוּא מֵת. אוֹ דִלְמָא הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא מָיֵית?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma:** If a limb of a body **decayed when he was alive, and** that individual **subsequently died, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **when** this **is learned** as a tradition that **dust** imparts ritual impurity, this applies only **if** the body **decayed when he was dead,** but not when he was alive, and therefore this corpse is considered deficient and its dust does not impart impurity? **Or perhaps, now in any event he is dead,** and his whole body has decomposed, and consequently its dust does impart impurity.


###### Nazir 51b:9
[Nazir 51b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּמֵת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רוֹב וְרוֹבַע וּמְלֹא תַרְווֹד רָקָב, תֹּאמַר בְּחַי כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** the aforementioned mishna: **No, if you say** that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity **with regard to a corpse, whose** *halakhot* of impurity are stringent, as **the majority** of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, **or a quarter-***kav* of its bones, **or** even **a full ladle of** its **dust** imparts impurity, **shall you** also **say** that it imparts impurity **with regard to a living** person, who does not have the *halakha* of the majority of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, nor a quarter-*kav*, nor a full ladle of dust.


###### Nazir 51b:10
[Nazir 51b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:10)

טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם חַי, הָא מֵת יֵשׁ לוֹ רָקָב! מִי קָתָנֵי הָא מֵת? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּשׁוּם מֵת — יֵשׁ לוֹ רָקָב, שׁוּם חַי — אֵין לוֹ רָקָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this passage: **The reason** the olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity **is due to** the fact that it is from **a living** person, from which it may be inferred that in a corresponding situation involving **a corpse,** the corpse **has** the *halakha* of **dust,** even if the limb had decomposed during the deceased’s lifetime. The Gemara rejects this contention as above: **Did** the mishna **teach that this corpse** in that particular case of an isolated limb has the *halakha* of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna **teaches us this: The name,** i.e., the category, **of a corpse has dust.** However, **the name of a living** person **does not have dust.**


###### Nazir 51b:11
[Nazir 51b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/51b:11)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: נְמָלָה שֶׁחָסְרָה, מַהוּ? שִׁיעוּרָא גְּמִירִין לַהּ — וְהָא חֲסַר. אוֹ בְּרִיָּה גְּמִירִי לַהּ — וְהָאִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In relation to the above discussion concerning a body without a limb, **Rava raised a dilemma:** If someone eats an entire ant, even if it is less than an olive-bulk in volume, he is liable for eating a creeping animal because it is a whole creature. Rava’s dilemma was as follows: If one eats **an ant that lacks** a part, e.g., a leg, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this individual liable to receive lashes? The two possibilities are as follows: **Is** it **learned** as tradition that **the amount** for which one is liable is a whole ant, **and this one is lacking? Or** did **we learn** that he is punished for a viable **entity, and there is** a viable entity here, despite the missing limb?