An olive-size of flesh which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Eliezer rules it tamei, and R. Yehoshua and R. Nechunia, tahor (clean). [A limb which separates from a living man is ruled to he tamei, so long as it is a whole limb — by maga (contact), masa (lifting), and ohel (tent-uncleanliness) — like the dead man himself, it being written (Numbers 16:19): "And all who touch on the face of the field, one slain by the sword or a dead body" — a limb separated from a living man by the sword is considered like the dead body itself. And flesh separated from a living man does not cause tumah unless it be (separated from) a whole limb. And when an olive-size of flesh separates from the limb of a living man, R. Eliezer rules it tamei and R. Yehoshua and R. Nechunia, tahor, as will be explained.] A bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Nechunia rules it tamei and R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, tahor. [A bone the size of a barley-corn from a dead body causes tumah by maga and masa, but does not cause ohel-uncleanliness, it being written (Ibid. 18): "and upon him who touched a bone." And it is a law to Moses from Sinai that it causes tumah when it is the size of a barley-corn. And when it is separated from the limb of a living man, R. Nechunia rules it tamei, etc.] They said to R. Eliezer: Why did you see fit to rule tamei an olive-size of flesh which separates from the limb of a living man? He answered: We find a limb (separated) from a living man to be like a dead body [(see Numbers 16:19 above)]. Just as with a dead body, an olive-size of flesh which separates from it is tamei, so with a limb (separated) from a living man — an olive-size of flesh which separates from it should be tamei. They: No, it follows that an olive-size of flesh separated from a dead body is tamei, for [it (a dead body) has another stringency, viz.] a bone the size of a barley-corn, separated from it is [also] tamei. But would you, therefore, rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from a living man [which lacks such a stringency] when you have ruled tahor a bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from it? [viz. above: "A bone the size of a barley-corn which separates from the limb of a living man — R. Nechunia rules it tamei and R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, tahor." From his own words they challenge his inference; and thus with R. Nechunia.] They said to R. Nechunia: Why did you see fit to rule tamei a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from the limb of a living man? He answered: We find a limb (separated) from a living man to be like a dead body. Just as with a dead body, a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from it is tamei, so with a limb (separated) from a living man — a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from it should be tamei. They: No, it follows that a bone the size of a barley-corn that separates from a dead body is tamei, for an olive-size of flesh separated from it is [also] tamei. But would you, therefore, rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from the limb of a living man, when you have ruled tahor an olive-size of flesh that separates from it? They said to R. Eliezer: Why did you see fit to divide your rulings (to rule tamei an olive-size of flesh separated from the limb of a living man and to rule tahor a bone the size of a barley-corn separated from the limb of a living man?) It should be either tamei in both case or tahor in both cases. He answered: Greater is the tumah of the flesh than the tumah of the bones. For flesh (uncleanliness) obtains with carrion and creeping things (sharatzim), as opposed to bone (uncleanliness), [it being written (Leviticus 11:36): "And one who touches their carcass" — their carcass, and not their bones, and not their horns, and not their hooves — whence we see that bones are not subject to carrion (neveilah) uncleanliness]. Another proof [that the tumah of flesh is more prevalent than that of bones]: A limb that has upon it sufficient flesh causes tumah by maga, masa, and ohel. If it is lacking flesh it is tamei; if it is lacking bone, it is tahor. [A limb does not cause tumah unless it has flesh, sinews, and bones, it being written (Numbers 19:16): "or the bone of a man" — Just as a man has flesh, sinews, and bones, so, all that has flesh, sinews, and bones. And if it were deficient in the flesh that was upon it, but there were left on it enough flesh that would heal if it were connected to a living man, it would cause tumah by reason of "a limb." And this is the intent of "If it is lacking flesh it is tamei." But if it is missing anything of the bone in the limb, it no longer causes tumah by reason of "limb." And this is the intent of "If it is lacking bone, it is tahor." That is, it is tahor by reason of "limb," but tamei by reason of "flesh." We therefore find the tumah of "flesh" to be more prevalent than that of "bone."] They said to R. Nechunia: Why did you see fit to divide your rulings? It should be either tamei in both cases or tahor in both cases. He answered: Greater is the tumah of the bones than the tumah of the flesh. For the flesh that separates from a living man is tahor, but if a limb separates from him, and it is in its natural state, [having flesh, sinews, and bones], it is tamei. Another proof (that the tumah of bones is more prevalent than that of flesh) is that an olive-size of flesh causes tumah by maga, masa, and ohel [(Because the beginning of the creation of a man is an olive-size, his tumah is an olive-size)], and the majority [125] of a man's bones [248] cause tumah by maga, masa, and ohel. If the flesh is lacking [an olive-size], it is tahor [entirely, from causing tumah — either by maga, or by masa, or by ohel.] If the majority of the bones are missing, even though he is tahor from causing tumah by ohel, he causes it by maga and masa. [For a bone the size of a barley-corn causes tumah by maga and masa — whence we see that the tumah of bones is more prevalent than that of flesh. For bones, (even) when their quantity (125) is lacking, tumah remains in them, whereas flesh, when its (minimum) size is lacking, is absolutely tahor.] Another proof: All the flesh of a dead body which is less than an olive-size is tahor, but the rov (majority) of the (bony) structure of a dead body [such as two forelegs and one thigh, (all of his structure being two forelegs and the thighs and the ribs and the spine)], and the rov of its number, though they lack a rova (a quarter), [(a rova of a kav of the bones of a dead body causes tumah in an ohel), still, even if they have neither the majority of the number nor the majority of the structure (but they have a rova); or if they have a majority of the number or a majority of the structure, but they lack a rova], they cause tumah. They said to R. Yehoshua: Why did you see fit to rule tahor in both cases? He answered: No, it follows that an olive-size of flesh [and a bone that separate from a dead body be tamei] for it has [stringencies like] "rov," "rova," and "rakav." Would you say the same thing about a living man, who does not have [the stringencies of] "rov," "rova," and "rakav"? [It does not follow that an olive-size of flesh or a barley-corn size of bone which separate from a living man should be tamei, but they are tahor. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua. ("rakav":) the dead body, when its moisture dissipates, becomes a kind of rotten (rakuv) earth, a full tarod of which (about a full hand-hollow of the average man) causes tumah. A full tarod causes tumah only (when taken) from a body buried naked in a marble coffin and covered with a marble cover, until it be known of a certainty that there is no admixture of the rottenness of a garment or of wood or of other earth. But a dead body that is buried in its garment or in a coffin of wood or earth has no rakav, and, likewise, a dead body buried without a limb.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי – a limb that separates from a living person, it’s law is that it defiles all the while it is a complete limb while in contact and while being carried and in the tent of the dead person himself, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “[And in the open, anyone who touches a person] who was killed, or who died naturally...,” the limb that had been severed by the sword from the living, it is like the dead. And the flesh that separates from the living does not defile until it becomes a complete limb and when an olive’s bulk of flesh separates from the limb of a living person, Rabbi Eliezer defiles as it explains the reason further on.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction This mishnah is one of the longer mishnayoth in the entire Mishnah, and it contains a long argument amongst the Sages about the quantities of flesh separated from corpses or from limbs separated from living bodies that will cause impurity. This mishnah is also a continuation of the previous mishnah, and the same Sages that were present there are present in our mishnah. Due to the length of the mishnah, and its intricate detail, we will divide it into two parts, one for today and one for tomorrow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
עצם כשעורה – from the dead defiles through contact and through carrying but it does not defile in the tent, as it is written (Numbers 19:18): ‘”or on him who touched the bones [or the person who was killed or died naturally or the grave],” and it is a traditional interpretation of a written law that it defiles with a barley seed in bulk, and when it separates from a living limb, Rabbi Nehuniah defiles it, etc.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
An olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man: Rabbi Eliezer pronounces impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia pronounce pure. A barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, Rabbi Nehunia pronounces impure and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua pronounce pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it? They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for pronouncing impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man? He said to them: we find that a limb from a living man is like an entire corpse; just as in the case of a corpse, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it is impure, so also in the case of a limb from a living man, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from it must be impure. They said to him: No! When you pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a corpse, it is because you have pronounced impure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it. But how can you also pronounce impure a barley-grain’s quantity of bone severed from a limb of a living man, seeing that you have pronounced pure an olive’s quantity of flesh severed from it?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
מצינו אבר מן החי כמת עצמו – that we derive it from the Biblical verse (Numbers 19:16): “who was killed or died naturally.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Explanation Section one: In the first section of this mishnah the opinions of the different Sages are listed without explanations. With regards to an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia declare it pure. With regards to a barley-grain’s (smaller than an olive) quantity of bone separated from living flesh, Rabbi Nehunia declares it impure and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Eliezer declare it pure. In other words, Rabbi Joshua consistently says that all of these things are pure, whereas Rabbi Nehunia and Rabbi Eliezer are somewhat inconsisent, each one declaring one thing pure and the other impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אם טמאת כזית בשר הפורש מן המת – that is to say, it is a law that an olive’s bulk of flesh that separates from the dead person will be defiled, just as it has another stringency that the bone is like a barley-seed in bulk that separates from it is also impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Section two: In this section the Sages ask Rabbi Eliezer why he declared that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like a corpse. Therefore, just as an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure, so too an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אבל נטמא כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי – in astonishment, for there isn’t in this that stringency.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure is that he has already stated that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone is impure. However, a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a living limb is pure (according to Rabbi Eliezer), and therefore he cannot state so easily that an olive’s quantity of flesh is impure. In other words a corpse is more impure than a limb separated from a living body (with regards to the purity of separated pieces of bones), and he therefore should not be able to compare one to the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שכן טהרת עצם כשעורה הפורש ממנו – for it is taught in the Mishnah above that a bone which is a barley-seed in bulk that separates from a living limb, Rabbi Eliezer and RabbiYehoshua declare if pure, but from its own words, they made an objection/refutation what did we find that he brought and similarly to Rabbi Nehunia..”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Section three: In this section the other Sages ask Rabbi Nehunia why he declared that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a living limb is impure. He answered them that a limb separated from a living person is impure like an entire corpse. Therefore, just as a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse person is impure, so too a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a limb is impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
שהבשר נוהג בנבילות ובשרצים וכו' – as it is written (Leviticus 11:36): “[However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be pure,] but whoever touches such a carcass in it shall be impure.” Such a carcass, and not the bones, and not the horns and not the cloven hoofs. So we see that the bones do not defile because of a carrion (that dies of itself).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The Sages respond by refuting his analogy. The reason that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from a corpse is impure is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse is impure. However, Rabbi Nehunia already stated that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a limb is pure; how therefore can he learn that a barley-grain’s size of bone separated from a limb is impure. In other word’s, Rabbi Nehunia’s analogy was based on the similarity in the impurity of limbs separated from living bodies with corpses. However, he taught above that flesh separated from corpses was more impure than flesh separated from limbs from a living body, and therefore he cannot learn one from the other with regards to the issue of bone impurity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אבר שיש עליו בשר כראוי – a limb does not defile other than if it has flesh and sinews and bones, as it is written (Numbers 19:16)” “or human bone,” just as a person who has flesh and sinews and bones, also all that have flesh and sinews and bones, and if it is missing from the flesh that was upon it and there remains upon it flesh as appropriate that will produce new flesh on a healing wound if it is attached to a living person, it defiles because of the limb, and that is - as we have said that if is missing the flesh, it is impure, but if it is missing a little bit from the bone in the limb, it does not defile because of the limb and that is as we have said, missing the bone, it is pure. That is to say, pure because of the limb, but it is impure because of the flesh and if so, we found that the defilement of the flesh is greater than the defilement from the bone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Introduction This is the second half of the mishnah which we began to learn yesterday.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
והוא כברייתו – flesh and sinews and bones.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
They said to Rabbi Eliezer: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of flesh than the impurity of bones, for the defilement of flesh applies both to (animal) carcasses and to creeping things, but it is not so in the case of bones. Another answer: a limb which has on it the proper quantity of flesh causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is still impure, while if the bone is diminished it is pure. They said to Rabbi Nehunia: what reason have you found for dividing your standards? Either pronounce them both impure, or pronounce them both pure! He said to them: greater is the impurity of bones than the impurity of flesh, for flesh severed from a living man is pure, whereas a limb severed from him, while in its natural condition, is impure. Another answer: an olive’s quantity of flesh (from a corpse) causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); and a majority of a corpse’s bones causes impurity by touching and by carrying and by being under the same roof-space (ohel); if the flesh is diminished it is pure, but if a majority of the bones is diminished, although it does not cause impurity by being under the same roof-space, it yet causes defilement by touching and by carrying. Another answer: any flesh of a corpse less than an olive’s quantity is pure, but bones forming the greater portion of the body’ build or the greater portion of the number of the corpse’s bones, even though they do not fill a quarter-kav are yet impure. They said to Rabbi Joshua: what reason have you found for pronouncing them both pure? He said to them: No! When you pronounce impure in the case of a corpse, it is because the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” apply to it. But how can you say the same of a living man, seeing that the rules of “majority”, “quarter-kav”, and “decayed matter” do not apply to him?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
כזית בשר מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל – they said according to the beginning of the creation of man is as an olive’s bulk. Therefore the measure of his defilement is an olive’s bulk.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Explanation Section one: The first question asked is to Rabbi Eliezer, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is impure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is pure. He should have declared either both pure or both impure. Two answers to this question are provided. The first answer is that flesh is more impure than bone, for the flesh of creeping things is impure while the bones of creeping things are pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ורוב עצמות – the majority of the number of the bones of a human being, since the number of the bones of a human is two-hundred and forty-eight. It is found that the majority is one-hundred and twenty-five.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The second answer also points at an aspect of flesh that is more impure than bone. A limb severed from a human being, if it has on it enough flesh that if it was still attached to the human being the limb would be viable, causes impurity through touching, carrying and by being underneath the same roof space. If some of the flesh falls off of this limb, it is still impure. If however, some of the bone falls off of this limb, the entire limb is pure. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient with regards to bone impurity than with regards to flesh impurity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
חסר הבשר – from the measurement of an olive’s bulk
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
Section two: The second question asked is to Rabbi Nehunia, why did he pronounce that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated a limb severed from a living body is pure but that a barley-grain’s quantity of bone separated from such a limb is impure (the opposite of Rabbi Eliezer). He should have declared either both pure or both impure. This time three answers to the question are provided, all of which show ways in which bones are more impure than flesh.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
טהור – completely from being defiled not through contact and not through carrying nor in a tent.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The first answer is that flesh that is separated directly from a living body is pure, whereas an entire limb separated from a living body, with its sinews and bone, is impure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
חסר רוב עצמות מטמא במגע ובמשא – for a bone like a barley-seed in bulk defiles through contact and through carrying, but does not defile in the tent. So we see that the defilement of bones is greater than defilement by flesh, for if it were the bones that were missing from their measurement, still defilement would remain in them, but flesh that is missing from its measure is completely pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The second answer is that an olive’s quantity of flesh separated from a corpse transmits impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space; so too a majority of a corpse’s bones transmit impurity by contact, carrying and by sharing the same roof-space. If there is less than an olive’s quantity of flesh, it doesn’t transmit impurity at all; however, if there is less than a majority of the corpse’s bones, although they no longer transmit impurity by sharing roof-space, they do transmit impurity by contact and by carrying. In this way, bone impurity is more serious than flesh impurity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
רוב בנינו – such as two lower legs and one thigh and all of the skeleton of a person are two lower legs and the thighs and the ribs and the backbone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Eduyot
The third answer is that less than an olive’s quantity of flesh is always pure. However, with regards to bones there is the possibility that even less than a quarter-kav.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אע"פ שאין בהן רובע – for one-quarter kab of ones of a dead person defile in the tent. Even though they don’t have the majority of the bones [of a human being] or the majority of the skeleton, they defile even though they lack the one-quarter [kab]. But flesh which is less than the equivalent of an olive’s bulk, you have nothing in it that will bring to him the defilement.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
אם אמרתם במת שיש בו רוב ורובע ורקב – it is the law that the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of flesh and a barley-side’s bulk of a bone that separates from the dead will be impure, for there are stringencies regarding the dead of a majority and one-quarter [kab] and a mass of earth from a grave containing parts of a decayed human body.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
תאמרו בחי שאין בו – these stringencies which is not the law that there would be neither the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of flesh nor a barley-seed’s equivalent of a bone that separate from the limb of a living person, they are [not] impure, but rather pure. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Eduyot
ורקב – the body of a dead whose moistness had ceased, and had become like dirt, this is רקב/decay of the body that defiles a spoon-filled of dust/tarvad-full of dust [from parts of a decayed human body] and its measurement is the handful of an intermediate-size individual. But a handful of a decayed human body does not defile other than from a dead person buried naked in an alabaster coffin which is covered with a marble cover until it is definitively known that there is no mixture of a decay of clothing or of wood or other dirt. But if the dead is buried in his clothing or in a wooden coffin or in the dust, there is no decay, and similarly, a dead person that is buried missing a limb, there is no decay.
