תלמוד על אהלות 2:14

So we find that Rebbi Aqiba disagreed with the Sages and did not act upon his opinion. As we have stated there (Mishnah Ahilot 2:6): “Spine and skull from two dead bodies, a limb composed of limbs of two dead bodies, limbs taken from two living persons, Rebbi Aqiba declares them to be impure and the Sages declare them to be pure.”¹²⁷Purity and impurity mentioned here refer to transmission of impurity by a “tent”, since automatically everybody under the same roof with a corpse becomes impure; the “pure” bones mentioned here will still transmit impurity by touch. The conditions of impurity are spelled out in Ahilot 2:1. Flesh is causing impurity down to the volume of an olive but bones do so only if they are either the volume of a quarter qab (about .55 liter), most of the bones composing the skeleton in number or in importance, or skull and/or spine. [Whether one has to read שדרה וגלגולת as “skull and spine” or “skull or spine” is discussed inconclusively in Babli Nazir 52b ff.] We have stated:¹²⁸Tosephta Ahilot 4:2; there the full name Theodoros is given to the chief surgeon. The Tosephta starts: “Rebbi Yehudah said: Six cases did Rebbi Aqiba declare impure and he changed his opinion; it happened …”, and ends: “Rebbi Simeon said: Until the time of his death did Rebbi Aqiba maintain that it should be impure; whether he changed his opinion when dying I do not know.” This means that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the vote at Lod showed that Rebbi Aqiba changed his opinion but, according to Rebbi Simeon, Rebbi Aqiba did not change his opinion, only he did not want openly to defy the opinion of the majority. We assume that the Yerushalmi here accepts the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, otherwise there is no proof here. It follows that also when the Yerushalmi quotes the Tosephta, sometimes the proof comes from the omitted parts. “It happened that they brought a chest full of bones from Kefar Tabi¹²⁹Former Arab village Kafr Ṭab East of Lod. to Lod and deposited it in the open air [the courtyard] of the synagogue. Theodoros the physician entered and with him all physicians. Theodoros declared that there was no complete spine from one dead person and no complete skull from one dead person. They said: Since we have here some who declare this pure and others who declare it impure, let us vote upon it. They started with Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it to be pure. They said: Since you had declared it impure, but now you vote for it to be pure, it is pure.”

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.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves¹⁹⁰Explained in Mishnah 2., one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave¹⁹¹Explained 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.”, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile¹⁹²Which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, Lev. 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 tent¹⁹³Mishnah Ahilut 2:1., a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it¹⁹⁰Explained in Mishnah 2., should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent¹⁹⁴Mishnah Ahilut 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“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..

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves¹⁹⁰Explained in Mishnah 2., one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave¹⁹¹Explained 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.”, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Meïr said, this should not be less than the impurity of a dead reptile¹⁹²Which requires immersion in water by biblical decree, Lev. 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 tent¹⁹³Mishnah Ahilut 2:1., a nazir shaves if he touches or carries it¹⁹⁰Explained in Mishnah 2., should it not be logical that for a quartarius of blood, which causes impurity to a human in a tent¹⁹⁴Mishnah Ahilut 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“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..