Talmud zu Oholot 2:3

אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, אֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁאֵין עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת שֶׁחָסָרוּ. כַּמָּה הוּא חֶסְרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ חֻלְיָה אֶחָת. וּבַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת. בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ, בַּקָּטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּגָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה:

Folgendes wird durch Berühren und Tragen, aber nicht durch Überschatten verunreinigt: Knochen von der Größe eines Gerstenkorns, [Erde aus] fremden Ländern, ein Beit Pras [ein Feld, auf dem ein Grab umgepflügt wurde], ein Glied einer Leiche oder ein Glied einer lebenden Person, auf der kein Fleisch vorhanden ist, die Wirbelsäule oder der Schädel sind mangelhaft. Wie groß ist ein Mangel an Wirbelsäule? Die Beit Shammai sagen zwei Wirbel. Beit Hillel sagt sogar einen Wirbel. Und im Schädel? Beit Shammai sagt [die Größe] eines Lochs, das von einem Bohrer [gemacht] wurde, aber Beit Hillel sagt so viel, als würde es einer lebenden Person entnommen, die er sterben würde. Von welcher Übung sprachen sie? Von den kleinen Ärzten sind dies die Worte von Rabbi Meir. Die Weisen sagen, der Große der Tempelkammer.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

If his foot was cut off, from above the joint¹¹⁷Since there is no Yerushalmi extant to Tractate Ḥulin, 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”¹¹⁸The corpse is missing a limb; the rules of “decay” do not apply., from below the joint there is “decay”. If it¹¹⁹The amputated limb. was buried together with him, from below the joint it becomes an attachment to him¹²⁰Since 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., 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 so¹²¹If 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., 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 graves¹²²This 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 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 there¹²³Mishnah Ahilut 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.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Vorheriger Vers Ganzes Kapitel Nächster Vers