MISHNAH: The High Priest and the nazir do not defile themselves for their relatives¹. 21:11; the same holds for the nazir, Num. 6:7. In the Babli and many Mishnah mss. (but not in Maimonides’s autograph) there is an additional clause: “but they have to defile themselves for a corpse of obligation”, i. e., an abandoned corpse of whose burial nobody is taking care. The first person finding the body has to bury him.. If they were walking on a road and found a corpse of obligation, Rebbi Eliezer says, the High Priest² defile himself but not a common priest if they stumble on the corpse together. shall defile himself but the nazir shall not defile himself. But the Sages say, the nazir shall defile himself but the High Priest shall not defile himself. Rebbi Eliezer said to them, the Priest shall defile himself, who does not bring a sacrifice for his defilement, but the nazir shall not defile himself, who has to bring a sacrifice for his defilement. They told him, the nazir shall defile himself, whose holiness is temporary, but the Priest shall not defile himself, whose holiness is permanent.

footnotes: ¹ The High Priest is forbidden to defile himself even for father or mother, Lev ² Even the High Priest, and certainly a common priest. Similarly, the Sages require that the nazir

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.³. 21:11, speaking of the High Priest. A parallel argument in the Babli, 47b.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest⁴. 21:1–3.? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah⁵. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation⁶. Some understand it from the following: “⁷. 21:4. The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself⁸. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “⁷. 21:4. To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

footnotes: ³ Lev ⁴ A common priest is forbidden to defile himself for any dead person other than close relatives, Lev ⁵ In his opinion, the High Priest who defiles himself for a corpse violates two identical prohibitions. ⁶ This follows the rule that “an exclusion on top of an exclusion means an inclusion.” Since in general a Cohen is forbidden to defile himself for the dead, the repetition of the prohibition for the High Priest indicates an obligation to defile himself in some cases. Since father and mother, for whom defilement is commanded to the common priest, are forbidden to the High Priest, the corpse for whom the High Priest (and by implication, any priest) has to defile himself is a non-relative, the corpse of obligation. ⁷ Lev ⁸ If other Jews are present who may bury the dead, he may not defile himself. By implication, if he is alone, he must defile himself. ⁷ Lev

Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.⁹. 21:23: “You may not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight, but bury, you shall bury him on that day, for a hanged person is blasphemy …”” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation¹⁰. They objected, are there not Gentiles¹¹ 9:4, Babli Sanhedrin 56a/b).? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword¹² 57a.. “Bury!” A positive commandment¹³. 220: “You may not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight,” a prohibition, “but bury!”, a positive commandment. A biblical commandment which is both positive and negative is the strongest of all commandments and will supersede opposing simple positive or simple negative commandments (Babli Yom Ṭob 8b, severely restricted in Yebamot 3b/4a) if written in the same verse (Yerushalmi Yom Ṭob 1:3, Ḥallah 2:1, Note 10, unrestricted).. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone¹⁴ 45b.. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body.

footnotes: ⁹ Deut ¹⁰ This means that the details of the rules for burials apply only to Jews to whom the details of the rules of blasphemy apply. ¹¹ The prohibition of blasphemy is part of the “natural law” given to Adam and Noaḥ (Tosephta ‘Avodah zarah ¹² The only method of execution recognized for Gentiles, Babli Sanhedrin ¹³ This is a shortened version of the explanation in Sifry Deut ¹⁴ Quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation¹⁵. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns¹⁶. 21:1 refers only to him becoming impure, not to what he does once he is impure. In the Babli, 43b, this is a tannaïtic statement ascribed to R. Jehudah.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father¹⁷ 4:27. In the Babylonian sources, Babli 43b, Sifra Emor Introduction 13, R. Jehudah represents the opinion ascribed here to R. Yose, while R. Yose denies that a Cohen defiles himself for a piece of his father’s bone. The reason given is Lev. 21:3 (speaking of the Cohen’s unmarried sister): “For her he has to defile himself,” interpreted as “for her body, but not for her body parts.”. ¹⁸ 14. Śemaḥot 4:28 (יוסף פסקס), Yalqut Qohelet 976 (יוסף הכהן). It is clear from the story that one speaks of a priestly family.“It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth¹⁹ on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left²⁰. He²¹ cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He²² addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father²³ 2:1).. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit²⁴. 7:15. The implication is that practice follows R. Yose.;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

footnotes: ¹⁵ This contradicts the preceding statement. ¹⁶ If a Cohen was burying a corpse of obligation and later found another limb of the same corpse, he may bury the limb since he already is impure and the prohibition of Lev ¹⁷ Śemaḥot ¹⁸ Sifra Emor Introduction ¹⁹ Greek νομή “cancerous growth”. ²⁰ Connecting the growth to his body. ²¹ The surgeon. ²² Yose ben Paxas. ²³ Since the growth, once separated from his body, is impure in the impurity of the dead (Mishnah Ahilut ²⁴ Eccl

What is a corpse of obligation? Anyone for whom he shouts and nobody comes²⁵ 89b, Erubin 17b): “Anyone who has nobody to bury him; if he calls and others answer him it is not a corpse of obligation.” The Yerushalmi version is in Śemaḥot 4:29.. If the villagers come, he refrains²⁶ refrain from defiling themselves.. How many? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements²⁷ 4:30: Carriers of the bier and grave diggers.. If he is not needed; but if he is needed, it is different²⁸ or Cohen, the latter have to defile themselves.. If [the deceased] is not recognized²⁹ or Cohen is precluded from defiling himself.. But if he is recognized, it is different. If it is not according to his honor; but if it is according to his honor, it is different³⁰ or Cohen who stumbles on his body also has to defile himself.. For the Patriarch it is his honor.

footnotes: ²⁵ In the Babli (43b, Yebamot ²⁶ Cohen or nazir ²⁷ In Śemaḥot ²⁸ If the dead cannot have a decent burial without the help of nazir ²⁹ If the deceased is not recognized by the locals; if he is recognized the nazir ³⁰ This is the introduction to the following paragraphs. If the prestige of the deceased is so great that priests have to defile themselve for his burial, it is obvious that the nazir

³¹ 3:1, Notes 95–101. The following paragraphs (to 56a, line 68) are from the same source, Notes 64–120. May a Cohen defile himself for the Patriarch? When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra³² text clearly is the correct one. in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Yehudinai, the sister of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they treated them like a corpse of obligation.

footnotes: ³¹ The same text is in Berakhot ³² The Berakhot

May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the Younger died. He was both his father-in-law and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Ḥama (?) heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students [of Rebbi Yose]³³, required by the context. defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine. Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves?

footnotes: ³³ From the text in Berakhot

May a Cohen defile himself for the study of Torah? Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in. He did not say anything either to those who remained sitting or to those who left.

Rebbi Nihumi the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi walked. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking in the streets of Caesarea. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

It is stated: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year, to redeem a field from a Gentile, to study Torah, and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen that he followed his teacher and defiled himself following his teacher to Sidon. In truth, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

May a (High) Priest defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gabilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me what Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will flog him!

Rebbi Abbahu was sitting teaching in the fortified synagogue in Caesarea; there was a coffin there. There came the time for lifting the hands and they did not ask him. There came the time for eating and they asked him. He said to them: For the lifting of hands you did not ask me, for eating you are asking me? When they heard this, each one was taking himself away and fled.

Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the King. When King Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

May [a Cohen] defile himself in honor of his father and mother? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road, leave. If it is in order to honor your mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him, so he said: Since you decided to go, return in peace. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

May a (person) [Cohen] defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah.

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his elevation sacrifice for the upkeep of the Sanctuary, and he answered him! Let us say when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of (Rebbi Simeon and) Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

It is stated: The carriers may not wear sandals lest a shoelace of one of them break so he would be prevented from performing a good deed.

Rebbi Zeïra bent down during a eulogy. They wanted to straighten him up and found that he tarried. They said to him, what is this? He said to them, because we will go there, following (Eccl. 7:2): “Let the one who is alive take it to heart.”

If somebody finds a corpse of obligation, he has to take care of it and bury it at its place³⁵. When is that? If he finds it outside the town limits³⁶. But if he found it inside the town limits, he brings it to the cemetary to bury it.

footnotes: ³⁵ The definition of “its place” is given in the paragraph after the next. ³⁶ Outside of 2000 cubits from the built-up domain of a village, or the city walls.

³⁷ 4:34; Derekh Ereṣ zuṭa 8. Quoted Tosaphot Ketubot 17a, Megillah 29a, s.v. מבטלין. Rebbi Aqiba said, the start of my practice before the Sages was the following. Once I was on the road when I found a corpse of obligation; I carried it about four mil to a cemetery and buried it. When I came to Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua and told them, they said to me that every step that you walked is counted against you as if you were shedding blood³⁸. I said, if I became guilty when I intended to acquire merit, how much worse is it if I do not intend to acquire merit. From that time on I did not interrupt practicing before Sages. He used to say, anybody who did not practice before Sages deserves the death penalty.

footnotes: ³⁷ Śemaḥot ³⁸ Since the corpse was removed from its natural place of burial.

The corpse of obligation acquired its place, four cubits³⁹ even in a field of saffron, for on this condition did Joshua distribute the Land to Israel⁴⁰ 5:1, Babli Baba qama 80b–82a; cf. Kilaim 2:5, Note 73.. When is this? If he found it in the field. But if he found it on the road, he buries it either to the right or to the left of the road⁴¹ 17b, explains this baraita away, assuming that the corpse was lying across the narrow roadway and encroaching on the fields on either side. According to Rashi, the corpse may be moved to protect passing Cohanim from the impurity of the dead.. A fallow and a ploughed field, he buries it in the fallow field⁴². A ploughed and a sown field, he buries it in the ploughed field. A vineyard and a sown field, he buries it in the sown field. A vineyard and an orchard, some Tannaïm state, he buries it in the vineyard; some Tannaïm state, he buries it in the orchard. He who says, he buries it in the vineyard but not in the orchard, because of a tent over the corpse⁴³. 19:14).. He who says, he buries it in the orchard but not in the vineyard because of the preparation of the grape harvest⁴⁴ 2:3, Note 141), and a grave in a vineyard makes its entire harvest irreparably impure.. If he switched, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He transgressed “do not defile your land⁴⁵. 21:23..” If both were fallow, or ploughed, or sown, he buries in the one he chooses.

footnotes: ³⁹ A square of land, four cubits in each direction, can be taken to dig the grave without requesting permission from the owner, who has no claim to compensation. ⁴⁰ Therefore, these rules do not apply outside the Land. The list of reservations for public use attributed to Joshua is in Baba batra ⁴¹ Use of the road is public use; use of land for burial of a corpse of obligation is public use. The later use cannot displace the prior. The Babli, Eruvin ⁴² If the corpse was found on the road between two fields. ⁴³ If a grave is is the shade of a tree, the entire canopy of the tree forms a “tent” over the grave; any person passing under the tree becomes impure by the impurity of the dead (Num ⁴⁴ Since wine-grapes collected in a basket at harvest time will be wet from the juice of some squashed grapes, they are “prepared” for impurity (cf. Demay ⁴⁵ Deut

A Cohen and a Levite, the Levite shall defile himself⁴⁶. A Levite and an Israel, the Israel shall defile himself. No, is not the Levite like the Israel⁴⁷? Rebbi Abin said, it was taught in the time of the platform⁴⁸. The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that between a High Priest and a nazir, the nazir shall defile himself but not the High Priest⁴⁹. Rebbi Eliezer agrees with the Sages that between a High Priest and a nazir, the nazir shall defile himself but not the High Priest⁵⁰. Think of it, if his father sanctified him from birth⁵¹ has to defile himself because his holiness is temporary. If the nazir is nazir from birth, that argument does not hold but the formulation of the Sages in the first sentence of the Mishnah does not admit of any exception.. The one⁵² is from the Torah, the other is not from the Torah⁵³ from birth is only given in the Prophets.. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: Rebbi Eliezer parallels the House of Shammai. As the House of Shammai say, between holy and frequent the holy has precedence⁵⁴ 8:1, the House of Shammai require that on Friday nights, the benediction for the Sanctification of the Sabbath (the holy) precede the benediction for the wine (the frequent)., so Rebbi Eliezer says, between holy and frequent the holy has precedence⁵⁵ who must bring a sacrifice for his defilement is holier than the Cohen who brings no sacrifice.. A nazir for 30 days and a nazir for 100, the nazir for 30 days shall defile himself. A nazir for 100 days and a nazir forever, the nazir for 100 days shall defile himself. A nazir forever⁵⁶, and a nazir of neziriot⁵⁷ referred to here has vowed many periods of more than one year., some Tannaïm state, the nazir forever shall defile himself; but some Tannaïm state, the nazir of neziriot shall defile himself. He who says, the nazir forever shall defile himself but not the nazir of neziriot, since he⁵⁸ forever shall defile himself since he never shaves. shaves more frequently. He who says, the nazir of neziriot shall defile himself but not the nazir forever, since he brings more sacrifices⁵⁹ of neziriot is more than one year, the nazir forever brings more sacrifices.. If he switched, it should be as Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He transgressed “do not defile your land⁴⁵. 21:23..” Here it is the same.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Since a Levite is not forbidden to defile himself. ⁴⁷ In matters of impurity, the Levite has no more obligations than the Israel. ⁴⁸ The platform in the Temple for the levitic singers. If the Levite was engaged in the Temple service, he must be careful not to become disabled by impurity. ⁴⁹ This is the position of the Sages in the Mishnah. ⁵⁰ R. Eliezer holds to his position in the Mishnah only for a common priest, not the High Priest. ⁵¹ Like Samson or Samuel. The reference is to the argument of the Sages that the nazir ⁵² The holiness of the Cohen. ⁵³ The possibility of a nazir ⁵⁴ In Mishnah Berakhot ⁵⁵ For him, the nazir ⁵⁶ He cuts his hair (but does not shave it off) once a year and brings three sacrifices; Halakhah 1:2. ⁵⁷ Similar to one described in Mishnah 1:4; from the argument it seems that the nazir ⁵⁸ The nazir ⁵⁹ If the basic period of the nazir ⁴⁵ Deut

MISHNAH: The nazir shaves for the following impurities: For a corpse, for flesh in the volume of an olive of a corpse, and for the volume of an olive of decayed matter from a corpse⁶⁰, and for a spoonful of decay, for the spine and for the skull⁶¹, for a limb from a corpse or a limb from the living on which there is sufficient flesh⁶², for half a qab⁶³ is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of bones, and for half a log⁶³ is 4 log or 2.13 liter. of blood, if they are touched, or carried⁶⁴, or under a tent⁴³. 19:14).. Also for a bone in the volume of a barley grain if it is touched, or carried, (or under a tent.)⁶⁵ of bones transmits impurity in a tent but less than that transmits impurity only by touch or carrying, not in a tent (Tosaphot 49b, s. v. על משאו). For these, the nazir shaves, he sprinkles on the third and seventh [days], he disregards the preceding days and starts to count only after he purifies himself and brings all his sacrifices.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Either decaying flesh or fluid from the corpse. If it is decayed so that it looks like dust it is counted as decay and follows the standard of the spoonful (under certain conditions). It is implied that all impurities enumerated in the Mishnah are biblical in nature. ⁶¹ Even if no flesh is left. ⁶² “Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. ⁶³ A qab ⁶³ A qab ⁶⁴ Even if the carrier does not touch the cause of impurity. ⁴³ If a grave is is the shade of a tree, the entire canopy of the tree forms a “tent” over the grave; any person passing under the tree becomes impure by the impurity of the dead (Num ⁶⁵ The last clause, which originally was also in Babli mss., is a scribal error since only half a qab

HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan⁶⁶: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also⁶⁷ of a corpse induces the impurity of the dead, why is it necessary to say that a complete corpse induces the impurity?? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive⁶⁸ 3:3 ff.. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell⁶⁹. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first⁷⁰. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta⁷¹ asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar⁷² Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut¹² 57a. that the nazir shaves for them⁷⁴? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah⁷⁵ 3:5, Note 135). The status of the fetus between the 41 day and delivery is never defined in the biblical text.. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity⁷⁶ 3:3–5 state that if there was a miscarriage and the sex of the fetus cannot be determined, the mother has to observe 14 days of impurity (for a girl) but the next 26 days are days of purity during which no genital discharge will make her impure (Niddah 3:2, Note 14). Since normally any genital discharge induces the seven-day impurity of menstruation in a woman, the rules of Tractate Niddah imply that the impurity of a stillbirth is biblical. If the impurity were rabbinic, it could not imply immunity (by necessity biblical) from impurity., it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ In the Babli, 49b/50b, the entire discussion is tannaïtic: Symmachos, a student of R. Meïr, asked R. Jehudah. ⁶⁷ The formulation of the Mishnah is redundant. If one kezayit ⁶⁸ As explained in Mishnaiot Niddah ⁶⁹ No limb has a recognizable shape. ⁷⁰ If the fetus does not fill the volume of an olive, it is to be assumed that its limbs are not recognizable. If its limbs are not recognizable, the body still might be larger than the volume of an olive. ⁷¹ He is “R. Yose” the Tanna; in the Babli, he gives the explanations ascribed in the Yerushalmi to R. Joḥanan. ⁷² There is no “R. Mana bar Hizqiah” mentioned otherwise in the entire talmudic/midrashic literature. Moreover, it is not mentioned who his partner was. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow all commentators and emend בר to לר׳ and read: “R. Mana (II) said to R. Ḥizqiah.” ¹² The only method of execution recognized for Gentiles, Babli Sanhedrin ⁷⁴ R. Yose’s criticism of the old man is unjustified since it would not be inconsistent with either Mishnah to hold that a corpse induces biblical impurity but a small part of the corpse only rabbinic impurity. In that case, the double mention in the Mishnah would be justified and, as noted in the sequel, R. Joḥanan once held this opinion. ⁷⁵ It is generally accepted that a termination of pregnancy within 40 days of conception is simply a failed conception, not an abortion, since there is no human fetus (Niddah ⁷⁶ Mishnaiot Niddah

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai says, why did they say that a crawling animal⁷⁷. 11:29–30. the size of a lentil makes impure? Because the start of the creation of a crawling animal is the size of a lentil⁷⁸ 56a, the parallel is an anonymous tannaïtic statement, deriving the power of tradition to determine the amount which induces impurity from the change in wording from בהם in Lev. 11:31 to מהם in 11:32. Since that change is required by the meaning of the verses, the Babli’s source is the school of R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Yudan asked: Should not a corpse bring impurity even if it is less than the volume of an olive, for did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, “to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive”⁷⁹ 6:1, Note 17; Babli Nazir 51b).? And a carcass⁸⁰ the size of a pea should cause impurity⁸¹, for Rebbi Ḥanina said, I saw a calf the size of a pea in a placenta! How is that? I say, [these are] sermons. Preach and receive reward⁸².

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Enumerated in Lev ⁷⁸ In the Babli, 52a and Niddah ⁷⁹ This in itself is an irrelevant question since R. Joḥanan makes it clear, here and elsewhere, that the minimal size requirements do not apply to fully formed creatures (cf. Berakhot ⁸⁰ From an otherwise kosher animal but which dies without being slaughtered. ⁸¹ When in fact the unchallenged tradition is that a minimum volume of an olive is required. ⁸² But rules of practice should never be derived from sermons.

What is decayed matter? Flesh of the corpse which was separated⁸³ (s. v. נצל) explains: “A stillbirth whose flesh coagulated but did not firm.” The quote from the Yerushalmi reads in the Arukh: בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁנָּצַל וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁקָּרַשׁ which can also be translated as: “Flesh of the corpse which was separated and fluid that coagulated”, the difference being that נצל means “to separate” in an abstract sense, as in Gen. 31:16 where Rachel and Leah congratulate themselves that God had separated Laban’s property from him and transferred it to them, while נתק means bodily separation, “tearing apart.” The suggestion by M. Margalit and J. Sussman to read נתוך instead of נתוק has no basis. It is remarkable that Tosephta Ahilut (2:3, quoted later in our text) goes into the details of the rules of decay but except for a fleeting reference to our Mishnah (Ahilut 4:5) never mentions נֵצֶל. If the text is taken as it stands, one might define nēṣel as “fibers from the corpse and fluid that coagulated.” and fluid that coagulated. Therefore not when it⁸⁴ is still mashed? Did not Rebbi Ḥanina say in the name of Rebbi: ⁸⁵ 4:3. In the latter, a Babylonian scribe or compiler systematically wrote חתך for התך, היתיך (as noted by D. Pardo). Fat from a corpse⁸⁶ which was melted remains impure; if he cut it⁸⁷ 4:4), or small pieces of fat from two different corpses are fused together by heating. The resulting olive-sized piece is not impure since “connection by a human is not counted” (Tosephta Ahilut 4:3). and then melted it, it is pure⁸⁸. Rebbi Yudan and Rebbi Yose, one says to exclude the fluid in the flesh⁸⁹; the other says that if it will fill the volume of an olive when congealed, it will be impure when still mashed⁹⁰.

footnotes: ⁸³ This text does not make much sense. The parallel in the Babli, 50a, reads בָּשָׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ וְהַמּוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ, “Flesh of the corpse that coagulated and fluid that was heated.” A gloss in the Arukh ⁸⁴ The blood in an intermediate state between fluidity and coagulation. It is unreasonable to assume that the blood should be impure as fluid and as fully coagulated matter, but not in an intermediate state. ⁸⁵ The text is paralleled in the Babli, 50a, and Tosephta Ahilut ⁸⁶ The text is a contamination of two versions. “The fat of a corpse” may either be חֵלֶב הַמֵּת or חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל הַמֵּת. ⁸⁷ The fat was cut in pieces smaller than olive size. Either this was done outside a “tent” (because all body parts of a corpse under one “tent” are joined together by the “tent”; Tosephta Ahilut ⁸⁸ Then the question is, if the state of the material does not matter, why should the mashed state matter? ⁸⁹ Any fluid which is not blood but oozes from a corpse is impure only if it became solid in an olive-sized piece. ⁹⁰ An exactly olive-sized piece of colloidal material will be pure since in solid form it will have shrunk.

We have stated⁹¹ 7:1.: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked⁹² 56a, explains soaking 24 hours in lukewarm water. will not return to its former status is pure⁹³ 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure⁹⁴ 56a., so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure⁹⁵ 23b. The argument is based on Deut. 14:21 which requires the animal carcass to be given to the non-Jewish resident or sold to the stranger. It is inferred that once a carcass can no longer be given away or sold, it has lost its legal standing as carcass. This corresponds to the rule, expounded at length in Tractate Kelim, that impure objects become pure once they have lost any commercial value., would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter⁹³ 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay⁹⁶, so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh⁹⁷, there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy⁹⁸. 14:30..” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave⁹⁹. 19:20. This is a new statement. Touching a grave induces the impurity of the dead irrespective of the age of the grave and the person buried while in the opinion of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai only a Jewish corpse induces the impurity of a “tent” (Babli Yebamot 61a.) The Babli concurs (loc. cit.). R. Yannai’s statement is attributed in the Babli, 54a, to his student R. Simeon ben Laqish.”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he¹⁰⁰, Bar Qappara holds that any root may represent all 6 permutations of its letters. This cannot be classified as a derivation; it is a hint.) transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Mishnah Niddah ⁹² The Babli, Niddah ⁹³ In the Babli, Niddah ⁹⁴ Babli, Niddah ⁹⁵ Babli, Bekhorot ⁹³ In the Babli, Niddah ⁹⁶ By the argument of Note 95, a decaying animal carcass has no commercial value and, therefore, is pure. “No decay” means “no impurity classified under the heading of ‘decay’ ”. ⁹⁷ The argument of the colleagues is well taken; R. Yose accepts the impurity of human decay only for decaying bone material, not for decayed flesh. ⁹⁸ Prov ⁹⁹ Num ¹⁰⁰ As confirmed by a fragment of baraita

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, took a spoonful from the place of the altar and created Adam from it. He said, he shall have been created from the place of the altar so that he should be able to stand up¹⁰¹ 14(9), R. Berekhiah and R. Ḥelbo in the name of R. Samuel ben Naḥman. The altar, with definite article, is the altar in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem which by tradition [Gen. rabba 34(8)] is the altar used by Adam, Noah, and Abraham.. That is what is written: “The Eternal Omnipotent formed Adam the first of dust from the earth¹⁰². 2:7.”, and it is written: “You shall build for me an altar of earth¹⁰³. 20:24..” Since “earth” there means an altar, here also [it means] an altar. “His days should be a hundred and twenty years.¹⁰⁴. 6:3.” Adam the first lived close to a thousand years and you say, “his days should be a hundred and twenty years”! But after 120 years he returns to be a spoonful of decay. That is difficult. For Og, the king of Bashan, 120 years, and for a newborn baby 120 years? Og [becomes] a spoonful of decay, and a newborn baby becomes a spoonful of decay. “¹⁰⁵ 2:2; Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 7:1, as legal principle independent of the story of 120 years. Quoted in the Babli, 50b, but there the rabbis derive the decay from the body of the hand, without the fingers. The spoonful of decay which they mentioned is from his finger joints and upwards, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, from a fully developed hand.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi was illustrating that of Rebbi Meïr one way, that of the rabbis in another way.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Gen. rabba ¹⁰² Gen ¹⁰³ Ex ¹⁰⁴ Gen ¹⁰⁵ Tosephta Ahilut

“Which corpse has decay¹⁰⁶ Mishnah 2:2, Tosephta 2:3.)? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor, or on a marble table. But if he was buried in a wooden casket or on a woooden plank; that is not decay but graves’ dust and needs somewhat more than a spoonful.”¹⁰⁷ 2:3; quoted in the Babli Nazir 51a, Niddah 27b. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if even the smallest attachment was buried with him, there is no decay¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Of two corpses which were buried together, each one becomes an attachment for the other¹⁰⁹. This¹¹⁰ is automatic; could one alone be an attachment to another? Abba bar Nathan¹¹¹ objected: Think of it, that somebody brought half a spoonful from one and half a spoonful from the other! He¹¹² was considering it when he¹¹³ was seen laughing; he¹¹² was offended by him and he¹¹³ died. Rebbi Yose¹¹⁴ said, there this man is gone and we did hear nothing about it¹¹⁵. What about it? There, neither of them will produce a spoonful of decayed matter, but here, each of them can generate a spoonful of decay¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Obviously, every corpse will eventually produce decayed matter. What is meant here is, under which circumstances does one apply the rules of “decay” which induces impurity by the spoonful, and when the rules of “grave dust” which requires more than a spoonful (Ahilut ¹⁰⁷ Tosephta Ahilut ¹⁰⁸ But graves’ dust. In the Babli, 51a, this is implied by a statement of Ulla. ¹⁰⁹ Babli 51a. ¹¹⁰ That there is symmetry between both corpses. ¹¹¹ In the Babli, 51a, a Rav Nathan states that decay combined from two corpses induces impurity. ¹¹² R. Yasa. ¹¹³ Abba bar Nathan. ¹¹² R. Yasa. ¹¹³ Abba bar Nathan. ¹¹⁴ Two generations later. ¹¹⁵ Whether decay from two corpses combines to induce impurity. ¹¹⁶ If two corpses are buried in a common grave, neither of them can produce decay by R. Joḥanan’s definition. But pure decay from two distinct corpses can be combined.

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint¹¹⁷, it is impossible to know exactly what is meant. Mishnah Ḥulin 6:4 states that an animal, one of whose legs was cut above the ארכובה, is unfit for consumption since it could not survive. There is no unanimity as to which leg joint is meant, the knee or the ankle. In the language of the Babli, both are called ארכובה (root רכב by metathesis from biblical ברך) and are distinguished by appropriate adjectives. It is reasonable to identify ארכובה here as the ankle, but this is far from certain. there is no “decay”¹¹⁸, from below the joint there is “decay”. If it¹¹⁹ was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him¹²⁰, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon: If he bound from below the joint as attachment? He said to them, if it were so¹²¹, even if it was not cut I should consider it as if cut and it should be an attachment! Since it is connected to him, it forms one body. If there is something missing, can it have “decay”? Let us hear from the following: If it is imcomplete, there is no “decay”, it does not require the surrounding earth, and it is not part of a row of graves¹²² which might have soaked up his blood. This is now qualified to apply only to complete corpses. If one finds three graves next to one another they form a cemetery which may not be disturbed. The rules governing possible removal of graves are detailed in Halakhah 9:3. The rules arc restricted here to graves containing complete corpses.. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, how much must be missing that it have no “decay”? Might it follow what we have stated there¹²³ 2:3. In the list of body parts of a corpse which cause impurity by touch and carrying but not in a “tent” appears an incomplete skull. The skull is considered incomplete by the House of Shammai if it exhibits a hole made by a surgeon’s drill, but by the House of Hillel only if the missing piece was large enough so “that he would die if it was removed.”: “That he will die if it was removed.” Is it the same here? Think of it, if the esophagus was perforated, nothing was missing but he could not survive. You have only the following: If his foot was cut off, from below the joint there is “decay”, from above the joint there is no “decay”. If it was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him, from above the joint it does not become an attachment to him.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Since there is no Yerushalmi extant to Tractate Ḥulin ¹¹⁸ The corpse is missing a limb; the rules of “decay” do not apply. ¹¹⁹ The amputated limb. ¹²⁰ Since he could have survived the amputation, the part taken becomes an attachment. But if the part amputated is so large that by the medical standards of the day the patient could not have survived, the amputated leg is part of the corpse if buried together with it. ¹²¹ If the amputated limb was sewn back to the corpse, if it were considered a separate part then any limb could be considered separate and there never would be a complete corpse. The Babli, 63b, does not require sewing but holds that a grave makes a complete corpse whole even if it was brought to the grave in pieces. ¹²² This is also quoted in the Babli, 51b.It is stated in Mishnah 9:3 that a person who finds an unattended corpse must bury it together with all surrounding earth ¹²³ Mishnah Ahilut

Do stillbirths generate “decay”? For him who says that their blood induces impurity by a quartarius¹²⁴ they generate “decay”; for him who says that their blood does not induce impurity by a quartarius, do they generate “decay”? Let us hear from the following: ¹²⁵ 16:1: “Small heaps close to a town or to a road, whether new or old, are impure since women bury there their stillbirths and lepers their limbs. Far away, new ones are pure, old ones impure; I am saying that there had been a road nearby.”“Why is the dust from small heaps impure? Because women bury there their stillbirths.” Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said: Would it not be reasonable otherwise, that lepers bury their limbs there?¹²⁶ 20b. You must say that it is because of “decay”, not because a bone the size of a lentil, since it was stated¹²⁷: “If he took some dust from it and replaced it, [the small heap] is pure.” Explain it following Tannaïm, as it was stated: If one removed it¹²⁸, it remains impure; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel declares it pure.

footnotes: ¹²⁴ For him a fetus is human; a stillbirth follows all rules of human corpses. ¹²⁵ Tosephta Ahilut ¹²⁶ Obviously, the Tosephta in this formulation was unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi. The full Tosephta text is paraphrased in the Babli, Ketubot ¹²⁷ If some decay is replaced by pure dust from another place, the latter becomes an attachment and by the rules of the previous paragraph, the earth lost its character of “decay”. But if the impurity were caused by a human bone, its impurity would be original biblical impurity; the new dust would have become impure immediately as a “tent” over the bone. Therefore, the second opinion expressed in the first part of the Tosephta is inconsistent with the rule stated at the end. ¹²⁸ If the entire little heap was levelled (without there appearing any bones in it), it remains impure if one assumes that some bone is buried below the levelled surface; it is pure if one assumes that it consisted only of “decay”.

Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said¹²⁹ 2:6, denying that people with a trepanned skull can survive a winter. Probably one has to read: R. Eleazar said., it was formulated following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: ¹³⁰ of bones” is also mentioned and both a skull and a spine fill the required volume of about 1 liter. A similar (anonymous) text is in Tosephta Ahilut 2:5: “A spine of which bones were removed is pure even if its outline still exists; But in a grave it is impure, even if broken, even if crushed, since the grave unites them.” The spine and the skull are impure even if crushed, even disconnected, because the grave unites them as “a human in a tent”¹³¹. 19:14..

footnotes: ¹²⁹ This name attribution cannot be correct since R. Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna, student of R. Meïr. A statement of his appears in Tosephta Ahilut ¹³⁰ This refers to the Mishnah and explains why spine and skull were mentioned separately when “half a qab ¹³¹ Num

The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah¹³², as it was stated¹³³ 4:13: “Rebbi Eleazar said, earlier the Elders were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones; some said, half a qab of bones and half a log of blood. The later court said: a quartarius of blood, a quarter (qab) of bones for heave and sacrifices, a half a qab of bones and half a log of blood for the nazir and the Temple.” It is difficult to correct the Yerushalmi text by the Tosephta since our text clearly puts Temple and sacrifices in the same category. In a parallel text to the Tosephta in the Babli, 53a, the speaker is R. Eliezer. Instead of “Temple” (meaning “access to the Temple”), he formulates the equivalent, “people who come for the Passover sacrifice”.: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, earlier the courts were divided; some said, a quartarius of blood, a quarter bones; some said, half a log of blood, a half a log of bones, for nezirut and the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings.” Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Simeon¹³⁴: They said this¹³⁵, this is a statement of R. Jacob bar Idi himself. as explanation from the mouths of Ḥaggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.

footnotes: ¹³² Probably both “Eleazar ben Azariah” and “Simeon ben Eleazar” should read simply “Eleazar”. ¹³³ Tosephta Ahilut ¹³⁴ R. Simeon ben Laqish. ¹³⁵ The determination of the minimum amounts inducing impurity was the result of prophetic inspiration, rathet than of logical derivation. In the Babli, loc. cit.

MISHNAH: But for overhanging branches¹³⁶ walks under a tree under which a grave is suspected., or protuberances¹³⁷, or broken fields¹³⁸, or Gentile territory¹³⁹, or the cave door, or its frame¹⁴⁰, or a quartarius of blood¹⁴¹, or a tent¹⁴². 19:14). The tent confines the impurity; outside of the tent everything is pure. The impurity of a person touching a tent (or a “roller” or a “knocker”) from the outside is purely rabbinical. But cf. Note 164., or a quarter (qab) of bones¹⁴¹, or objects that touched the corpse¹⁴³ 2:3, Note 137., or the days of his counting or his being absolute¹⁴⁴ is enjoined from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead; in general, impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his status as nazir. “The days of his counting” are the eight days which the healed sufferer from skin disease has to observe between the preliminary and the final expiation ceremonies. These days do not interfere with his status as nazir but they cannot count since he has to shave all his hair on the first and seventh days. “The days of his being absolute” is the time in which the sufferer is declared to be certainly impure. Then he is required not to shave his hair (Lev. 13:45); nevertheless, these days do not count towards the fulfillment of his vow., the nazir does not shave¹⁴⁵ but sprinkles on the third and seventh days¹⁴⁶. 19:12., does not disregard the preceding¹⁴⁷. But the preceding and following days count and after purification he simply completes the count; he does not start anew., starts counting immediately, and has no sacrifice. In truth¹⁴⁸, the days of a male or female sufferer from flux¹⁴⁹. 15. As explained in Note 144, this impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his state of nezirut. “The days of quarantine” are those in which the possible sufferer from skin disease is put under observation before his final status is determined (Lev. 13:4,5,21,26, 31). and the days of quarantine of the sufferer from skin disease are counted for him.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ If the nazir ¹³⁷ Standing out from a building or a fence and it is suspected that a grave may be buried underneath. ¹³⁸ “The house of the broken-off piece” is a field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field. ¹³⁹ Which is rabbinically impure even in the Holy Land. ¹⁴⁰ גּוֹלֵל “the roller” is a large circular stone which closes the entrance to a burial cave. דּוֹפֵק “the knocker” is the frame which keeps the roller in place. The expressions were later transferred to burial in the earth, where “the roller” became the stone plate covering the grave and “the knocker” the stone frame on which it rests. Cf. Note 142. ¹⁴¹ One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity. ¹⁴² Everything inside a tent in which there is a corpse is impure (Num ¹⁴¹ One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity. ¹⁴³ An object inside a tent in which there is a corpse is a source of original impurity. But an object touching a corpse under the open sky becomes impure in a derivative way. Anybody touching such an object becomes impure in a secondary way which in most cases is only rabbinical; cf. Demay ¹⁴⁴ This refers to the sufferer from skin disease. The nazir ¹⁴⁵ If his impurity is caused by a corpse and either is rabbinical or questionable. ¹⁴⁶ Num ¹⁴⁷ The time he is in any state of impurity caused by the dead, whether rabbinical or questionable, cannot be counted towards fulfillment of his vow of nazir ¹⁴⁸ This expression is a label for an old, pre-Mishnaic, rule. ¹⁴⁹ Lev

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle¹⁵⁰ has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently¹⁵¹ is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively¹⁵². What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently⁶² covered by flesh¹⁵³ 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked¹⁵⁴: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone¹⁵⁵ 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain¹⁵⁶! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person¹⁵⁷ Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir ¹⁵¹ Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir ¹⁵² Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration. ⁶² “Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. ¹⁵³ Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁵⁴ He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position. ¹⁵⁵ Num. ¹⁵⁶ For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum. ¹⁵⁷ Without a minimum; Sifry

Rebbi Joḥanan said, overhanging branches and protuberances are biblical for heave¹⁵⁸ even though the nazir does not shave. Rebbi Jeremiah asked¹⁵⁹, if to burn it, one burns even for a rabbinic doubt; maybe to whip¹⁶⁰? Rebbi [Yose]¹⁶¹ from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah and disgagrees with Rebbi Jeremiah: “For any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir shaves one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity deriving from a corpse for which a nazir does not shave one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.¹⁶²”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ If heave was transported under overhanging branches or protuberances which might cover a grave, it becomes impure and forbidden as food; it must be burned. ¹⁵⁹ Is there any practical difference whether the impurity imputed to the heave is biblical or rabbinical? ¹⁶⁰ Implying that a person can be whipped for exposing heave to the impurity induced by overhanging branches or protuberances. ¹⁶¹ Missing in the text; identified in Halakhah 4 (Note 219). ¹⁶² Mishnah 4. If entering the Temple is not prosecutable, neither is exposing heave to this impurity.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, layers of a tree which cover four-by-four [handbreadths]: the nazir shaves¹⁶³ which passes under the tree is in a “tent” together with the impurity and has to shave.. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one of his hands is on the other side and one hand is in the layer, the nazir does not shave¹⁶⁴ stands outside the tree and only one of his hands is in the crown, he does not become impure by the “tent” formed by the tree. In general, the roof of a “tent” covering an impurity shields anything above it from impurity. The only exception is טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה “squeezed impurity”: If the roof of the tent is less that a handbreadth above the impurity, it does not shield but the impurity rises up to the sky and below into the ground (Mishnah Ahilut 7:1, 14:7).. Rebbi Yose asked: If it separates from impurity it also should separate from purity; if it does not separate from impurity, it should not separate from purity¹⁶⁵ 6:1 which states that “humans and objects form tents to make impure but not to make pure.” In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer disagrees and holds that any roof which brings impurity shields everything above it from impurity. R. Yose notes that the position of R. Eliezer is the only rational one.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the bedroom and the nazir under the bed, the nazir shaves¹⁶⁶ is more than one handbreadth below the bottom of the bed.. Certainly if the corpse is under the bed and the nazir in the bedroom, does the nazir not shave¹⁶⁷. The ceiling of the room is the “tent” and everything below it is impure.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse and the nazir are under the bed frame¹⁶⁸, under the belly of a camel¹⁶⁹, under the width of a gate, under the gutters¹⁷⁰, the nazir does not shave, nor for anything which is there for protection¹⁷¹. Ḥizqiah heard it and said, they purified the dead¹⁷²! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the corpse is in the anteroom and the nazir in the dining hall, the nazir shaves; certainly if the corpse is in the dining hall and the nazir in the anteroom, the nazir shaves¹⁷³ 4:3: “If [impurity] was in the entrance with the door open, the house is pure; if it was in the house, everything in the house is impure, since it is the way of impurity to leave but not to enter.” If the dining hall had no windows (or its windows were narrow slits through which no corpse could be transported), so that the only way out was through the door of the anteroom, it is obvious that everybody in the anteroom was biblically impure if the corpse was in the dining hall. If the corpse was in the outer room, it still was on the same floor in the same building as the nazir, who would be made biblically impure by the “tent”, the ceiling of his room.. Rebbi Mana asked, if it is a tent to separate it should be a tent to draw along; if it is not a tent to draw along, the impurity should disappear¹⁷⁴ was not biblically impure since impurity is supposed to leave?! Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the impurity is under the outer half of the wall, the nazir shaves¹⁷⁵ 6:3. If the wall of a house is rather thick and the “squeezed” impurity (Note 165) is under the inner part of the wall, the house is impure but anybody standing on the roof is pure since the roof intercepts the impurity. But if the “squeezed” impurity (Note 165) is under the outer part of the wall, the house is pure but anybody standing on the wall is impure since a roof does not intercept a “squeezed” impurity. R. Joḥanan asserts that this rule is biblical.. Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground¹⁷⁶ of the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: The nazir does not shave for most of the skeleton¹⁷⁷); cf. Babli 53a. or most of the bones¹⁷⁸); Mishnah Ahilut 2:1..

footnotes: ¹⁶³ If a tree has a thick crown which forms a roof over an area of at least 4 by 4 handbreadths so that the sky is not visible, and impurity derived from a corpse is under this roof; a nazir ¹⁶⁴ If the nazir ¹⁶⁵ This question is directed towards Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁶⁶ Since a bed can be moved, it is an object and brings impurity, even if the nazir ¹⁶⁷ Even if the bed is one handbreadth above the corpse it does not form a “tent” to protect the nazir ¹⁶⁸ Not in a room, and the frame is not holding bedding. This is a situation similar to that of standing under the gutters attached to a building. ¹⁶⁹ A moving “tent” which only transmits rabbinic impurity. ¹⁷⁰ Greek μέλαθρον “roof-tree, beam, roof”. ¹⁷¹ But not for dwelling. ¹⁷² Since Ḥizqiah was R. Joḥanan’s teacher, practice cannot follow R. Joḥanan. ¹⁷³ This now refers to Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁷⁴ As explained in the preceding Note, the second case is the more natural and should have been mentioned first. In the formulation given, should one not ask whether in the first case the nazir ¹⁷⁵ This is a commentary on Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁷⁶ The definition of “squeezed” impurity. ¹⁷⁷ The spine and skull (assuming they do not amount to half a qab ¹⁷⁸ 125 bones (assuming they do not amount to half a qab

“In truth;” Rebbi Eliezer¹ said that every place where they stated “in truth,” refers to practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai.

footnotes: ¹ This reading is found also in Sabbat 10:4 (12c, 1. 46). But in the other occurrences in the Yerushalmi, Sabbat 1 (3b 1. 69), Kilaim 2:2 Note 36, Terumot 2:1 Note 16, the name is "Eleazar" (Lazar). In the Babli the quote is anonymous in Sabbat 92b; it appears in the name of R. Eleazar in Baba mesi'a 60a.

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.¹⁷⁹ 6:12.” From here that the days of impurity fall away¹⁸⁰ even though the sufferer from skin disease is also required to let his hair grow.. Then should he invalidate¹⁸¹ who develops skin disease simply waits until he is healed and then finishes his count. Why does he not start anew as in the case of impurity of the dead?? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead¹⁸². Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted¹⁸³ 1:4 states that the impurity of the sufferer from skin disease is more severe than the impurity of the female sufferer from flux. For the latter, it is stated explicitly (Lev. 15:26) that any couch and any seat used by her becomes a source of original impurity. No direct biblical source exists for declaring the sufferer from skin disease to cause this kind of impurity; it is derived indirectly in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parashah 2(6). This derivation is accepted at face value by Maimonides both in his Mishnah Commentary (Kelim 1:4) and in his Code (Turn‘at Ṣara‘at 10:11). The commentators of the Babli (Rashi, Pesaḥim 67b s. v. זב, Ravad, Commentary to Sifra) have difficulties in accepting the Sifra since it seems to contradict the Babli Pesaḥim 67b, but a student of the Yerushalmi does not have to consider this, in particular since Ravad does not object to Maimonides’s ruling in his Code. For impurity there is no difference between a sufferer from skin disease in quarantine and one positively declared infirm (Mishnah Megillah 1:7, Nega‘im 8:8). The argument given here refers to Mishnah Nega‘im 14:2 which states that the healed sufferer from skin disease in his days of counting, between the preliminary and the definitive purification, is free from all severe impurities and does not cause more impurity than a dead reptile (the slightest of impurities, Mishnah Kelim 1:1). It does not seem to make any sense to accept the days of the severely impure quarantined but not to accept the slightly impure counting sufferer from skin disease (cf. Note 144).! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi []¹⁸⁴ said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”¹⁸⁵ 6:5.. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving¹⁸⁶ are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse¹⁸⁷ 12:12, speaking of Miriam who was punished for calumniating Moses by becoming a clear sufferer from skin disease (v. 10), not a case of quarantine..” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined¹⁸⁸ 12:14..” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven¹⁸⁹ 1:8, Nega‘im 8:8). The verse cannot be applied to the absolute sufferer..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Num. ¹⁸⁰ The days of certified skin disease cannot count as days of nezirut ¹⁸¹ The Mishnah states that a nazir ¹⁸² The biblical law is quite clear that only the impurity of the dead makes him lose the earlier days of his count. ¹⁸³ Mishnah Kelim ¹⁸⁴ There are no sources which would permit filling in the lacuna. ¹⁸⁵ Num. ¹⁸⁶ For the final purification of the sufferer from skin disease. ¹⁸⁷ Num. ¹⁸⁸ Num. ¹⁸⁹ While the case of Miriam was clearly not one of quarantine, the verse treats it as such by (1) calling her exclusion from the camp “quarantine” and (2) exempting her from the cleansing ritual which is required of the absolute sufferer but not the quarantined (Mishnah Megillah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves¹⁹⁰, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave¹⁹¹, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile¹⁹² 11:31, and a person is guilty if he enters the Sanctuary when impure, Lev. 5:2.! Rebbi Aqiba said, I argued before Rebbi Eliezer: If for a barley-grain sized bone, which does not cause impurity to a human in a tent¹⁹³ 2:1., a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it¹⁹⁰, should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent¹⁹⁴ 2:2. The nazir does not shave, Mishnah 3., a nazir should have to shave if he touches or carries it? He said to me, what is that, Aqiba? This is not a place for an argument de minore ad majus! When I came and expounded that before Rebbi Joshua, he said to me, you have a good argument, but that is what they said was practice¹⁹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Explained in Mishnah 2. ¹⁹¹ Explained in Mishnah 3. In Mishnah Parah 11:4 the formulation is: “For any impurity which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity which does not require immersion in water by biblical decree, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” ¹⁹² Which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, Lev. ¹⁹³ Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁹⁰ Explained in Mishnah 2. ¹⁹⁴ Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁹⁵ “Practice” here means an old tradition, whose origin can no longer be ascertained and which cannot be overruled. The relationship of this kind of practice to the interpretation of biblical verses is not amenable to logical analysis.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There¹⁹⁶ 1:1., we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening¹⁹⁷ 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁸ 1:2: An object touching the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself (Sifry Num. 130). A second object touches the first; it becomes a source of original impurity; both need the ritual of Num. 19. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁹ 1:3: An object which touches the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself. A human touches the first object, becoming a source of original impurity; a second object touches the human, also becoming a source of original impurity. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave²⁰⁰, but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself²⁰¹ 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second²⁰²? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person²⁰³, not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty²⁰⁴ 19 but entering the Sanctuary without it is guilty of a deadly sin, as stated in Num. 19:20. The person only impure in the first degree, not subject to this ritual, is guilty of a sin but not a deadly one. As explained in Note 199, if the impurity is transmitted by an object, the human may be the second in the sequence.. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water²⁰⁵ 22:3) without immersing himself in water. But if he enters (or eats sanctified food) between immersion and sundown, he commits a minor sin (Lev. 22:7)..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁹⁷ As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. ¹⁹⁸ Explained in Mishnah Ahilut ¹⁹⁹ Explained in Mishnah Ahilut ²⁰⁰ Not only for heave but also for sacrifices: anything with a status of sanctity. But for profane food, humans, or objects, anything touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity; the person touching it or him becomes impure in the first degree. In biblical law, no human can become impure by derivative impurity. No person touching anything more than once removed from the corpse can become biblically impure. ²⁰¹ Num. ²⁰² A person who touched objects which touched objects which touched the corpse is a third in line who is impure by biblical standards and guilty if he enters the Sanctuary unpurified. ²⁰³ The statement of R. Joḥanan refers to impurity of a person induced by a person. ²⁰⁴ Anybody needing the ritual of Num. ²⁰⁵ The person impure in the first degree may still commit a deadly sin by entering the Sanctuary (Lev.

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty²⁰⁶. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure²⁰¹ 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third²⁰⁷ 19 and not be guilty entering the Sanctuary unpurified?? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary²⁰⁸. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human¹⁹⁷ 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects²⁰⁸. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there²⁰⁹ 1:5 says the same in different words. disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth²¹⁰ and half of dung²¹¹ one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary²¹²” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first²¹³? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it²¹⁴. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty²¹⁵. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna²¹⁶, as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said²¹⁷ to shave., it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth²¹⁸ is quite clear that it is punishable even for the third and fourth person.. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah²¹⁹: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan²²⁰: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

footnotes: ²⁰⁶ He holds that a deadly sin is only committted if a person impure by contact from body to body is entering the Sanctuary, not if the impurity was transmitted by contact with an object as explained in Notes 197,198. ²⁰¹ Num. ²⁰⁷ How could it be that a person needs purification by the rites of Num. ²⁰⁸ The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate. ¹⁹⁷ As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. ²⁰⁸ The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate. ²⁰⁹ Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a ²¹⁰ Probably clay is meant; earth of a consistency from which objects can be made. Clay objects are the paradigm of objects which can become impure; they cannot be purified except by being broken. ²¹¹ Objects made of dried camel or cow dung cannot become impure. ²¹² If such an object was brought to the Sanctuary after being exposed to impurity, no sin was committed. ²¹³ Since an object cannot be guilty, the human who touches it must be guilty. This contradicts both R. Ila and R. Abin bar Ḥiyya. ²¹⁴ Somebody threw an impure clay object into the Sanctuary grounds. Then there is no question of a human entering the holy precinct. ²¹⁵ A person is impure in original impurity who transmits impurity to his garments. If he enters the Sanctuary while impure, he commits a deadly sin with his body. But at the same time, he carries his impure garments into the holy precinct. This is a separate offense, punishable by 39 (= 40–1) lashes. The implication is that a person throwing an impure object into the Sanctuary is whipped but not subject to Divine extirpation. ²¹⁶ R. Ila, an Amora. ²¹⁷ R. Joḥanan holds that the entire discussion up to this point is based on a false premise. It is clear to him that anybody impure in at least the first degree is forbidden access to the Sanctuary on penalty of extirpation. R. Joshua’s statement only deals with the impurity generated by the corpse. Such impurity prohibits the person contaminated by it (or any of its derivatives up to the level of first degree impurity) from entering the Sanctuary if and only if it forces the nazir ²¹⁸ He tries to salvage the opinions of R. Illa and R. Abin ben Ḥiyya, that everybody would agree that any person entering the Sanctuary in impurity commits a sin; the question would only be about a sacrifice for an unintended infraction. But for wilful transgression, the Mishnah in Ahilut ²¹⁹ He confirms the interpretation given in Note 217. ²²⁰ The order of the last two names has to be inverted: R. Yose ben R. Bun said in the name of R. Joḥanan who heard it from R. Yannai.