Una carne olivastra che si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente —R. Eliezer lo governa tamei, e R. Yehoshua e R. Nechunia, tahor (pulito). [Un arto che si separa da un uomo vivente è governato da lui tamei, purché sia un arto intero— di maga (contatto), masa (sollevamento) e ohel (impurità della tenda) — come il morto stesso, scritto (Numeri 16:19): "E tutti coloro che toccano la faccia del campo, uno ucciso dalla spada o da un cadavere" —un arto separato da un uomo vivente dalla spada è considerato come il cadavere stesso. E la carne separata da un uomo vivente non causa il tuma a meno che non sia (separato da) un intero arto. E quando una carne olivastra si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente, R. Eliezer lo governa tamei e R. Yehoshua e R. Nechunia, tahor, come verrà spiegato.] Un osso grande quanto un mais d'orzo che si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente—R. Nechunia lo governa tamei e R. Eliezer e R. Yehoshua, tahor. [Un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo proveniente da un cadavere provoca tuma di maga e masa, ma non causa impurità, essendo scritto (Ibid. 18): "e su colui che ha toccato un osso". Ed è una legge per Mosè del Sinai che provoca tuma quando ha le dimensioni di un grano d'orzo. E quando è separato dall'arto di un uomo vivente, R. Nechunia lo governa tamei, ecc.] Dissero a R. Eliezer: Perché hai ritenuto opportuno governare tamei una carne olivastra che si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente? Rispose: troviamo un arto (separato) da un uomo vivente per essere come un cadavere [(vedi Numeri 16:19 sopra)]. Proprio come con un cadavere, una carne olivastra che si separa da essa è tamei, così con un arto (separato) da un uomo vivente—una carne di dimensioni olivastre che si separa da essa dovrebbe essere tamei. Loro: No, ne consegue che una carne olivastra separata da un cadavere è tamei, poiché [un (cadavere) ha un altro rigore, vale a dire] un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo, separato da esso è [anche] tamei. Ma, quindi, governeresti tamei una carne olivastra separata da un uomo vivente [che manca di tale rigore] quando hai governato un osso grande quanto un mais d'orzo che si separa da esso? [cioè. sopra: "Un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo che si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente— R. Nechunia lo governa tamei e R. Eliezer e R. Yehoshua, tahor. "Dalle sue stesse parole sfidano la sua inferenza; e quindi con R. Nechunia.] Dissero a R. Nechunia: Perché hai ritenuto opportuno governare tamei un osso delle dimensioni di un grano d'orzo che si separa dall'arto di un uomo vivente? Rispose: Troviamo un arto (separato) da un uomo vivente per essere come un cadavere. Proprio come con un cadavere, un osso il la dimensione di un mais d'orzo che si separa da esso è tamei, quindi con un arto (separato) da un uomo vivente —un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo che si separa da esso dovrebbe essere tamei. Loro: No, ne consegue che un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo che si separa da un cadavere è tamei, poiché una carne olivastra separata da esso è [anche] tamei. Ma, quindi, governeresti tamei una carne olivastra separata dall'arto di un uomo vivente, quando avrai governato una carne olivastra che si separa da essa? Dissero a R. Eliezer: Perché hai ritenuto opportuno dividere le tue decisioni (per governare tamei una carne olivastra separata dall'arto di un uomo vivente e per governare tahor un osso grande quanto un mais d'orzo separato dal arto di un uomo vivente?) Dovrebbe essere o tamei in entrambi i casi o tahor in entrambi i casi. Rispose: maggiore è il tuma della carne rispetto al tuma delle ossa. Perché la carne (impurità) ottiene con carogne e cose striscianti (sharatzim), al contrario dell'osso (impurità), [in fase di scrittura (Levitico 11:36): "E chi tocca la loro carcassa"— la loro carcassa, e non le loro ossa, e non le loro corna, e non i loro zoccoli —da cui vediamo che le ossa non sono soggette a impurità carogne (neveilah)]. Un'altra prova [che il tumah della carne è più prevalente di quello delle ossa]: un arto che ha su di essa una carne sufficiente provoca tumah da maga, masa e ohel. Se manca di carne è tamei; se manca di osso, è tahor. [Un arto non provoca tuma a meno che non abbia carne, tendini e ossa, essendo scritto (Numeri 19:16): "o l'osso di un uomo"—Proprio come un uomo ha carne, tendini e ossa, così, tutto ciò che ha carne, tendini e ossa. E se fosse carente nella carne che si trovava su di essa, ma vi fosse rimasta abbastanza carne che avrebbe guarito se fosse stata collegata a un uomo vivente, avrebbe causato tuma a causa di "un arto". E questo è l'intento di "Se manca di carne è tamei". Ma se manca qualcosa dell'osso nell'arto, non causa più tuma a causa di "arto". E questo è l'intento di "Se manca l'osso, è tahor". Cioè, è tahor in ragione di "arto", ma tamei in ragione di "carne". Troviamo quindi che il tuma di "carne" sia più prevalente di quello di "osso".] Dissero a R. Nechunia: Perché hai ritenuto opportuno dividere le tue decisioni? Dovrebbe essere o tamei in entrambi i casi o tahor in entrambi i casi. Rispose: maggiore è il tuma delle ossa rispetto al tuma della carne. Perché la carne che si separa da un uomo vivente è tahor, ma se un arto si separa da lui, ed è nel suo stato naturale, [avendo carne, tendini e ossa], è tamei. Un'altra prova (che il tuma di ossa è più prevalente di quello di carne) è che una carne di dimensioni olivastre provoca tuma di maga, masa e ohel [(poiché l'inizio della creazione di un uomo è di dimensioni olivastre, il suo tuma è di dimensioni olivastre)], e la maggior parte [125] delle ossa di un uomo [248] causa il tuma di maga, masa e ohel. Se la carne manca [una dimensione di oliva], è tahor [del tutto, dal causare tumah—o da maga, o da masa, o da ohel.] Se manca la maggior parte delle ossa, anche se è tahor dal causare tumah da ohel, lo causa da maga e masa. [Per un osso delle dimensioni di un mais d'orzo provoca tuma da maga e masa—da cui vediamo che il tumore delle ossa è più prevalente di quello della carne. Per le ossa, (anche) quando manca la loro quantità (125), il tumah rimane in esse, mentre la carne, quando le sue dimensioni (minime) mancano, è assolutamente tahor.] Un'altra prova: tutta la carne di un cadavere che è meno di un olivo è tahor, ma la rov (maggioranza) della struttura (ossuta) di un cadavere [come due zampe anteriori e una coscia, (tutta la sua struttura è costituita da due zampe anteriori e le cosce e le cosce e le costole e la colonna vertebrale )], e il rov del suo numero, anche se mancano di un rova (un quarto), [(un rova di un kav delle ossa di un cadavere provoca tumah in un ohel), ancora, anche se non hanno né la maggioranza del numero né della maggioranza della struttura (ma hanno una rova); o se hanno la maggioranza del numero o la maggioranza della struttura, ma mancano di una rova], causano tumah. Dissero a R. Yehoshua: Perché hai ritenuto opportuno governare Tahor in entrambi i casi? Egli rispose: No, ne consegue che una carne olivastra [e un osso che si separa da un cadavere è tamei] poiché ha [stringenze come] "rov", "rova" e "rakav". Diresti la stessa cosa su un uomo vivente, che non ha [i rigori di] "rov", "rova" e "rakav"? [Non ne consegue che una carne di dimensioni olivastre o ossa di orzo che si separano da un uomo vivente dovrebbero essere tamei, ma sono tahor. L'halachah è conforme a R. Yehoshua. ("rakav" :) il cadavere, quando la sua umidità si dissipa, diventa una specie di terra marcia (rakuv), di cui un tarocco pieno (circa una cavità di una mano dell'uomo medio) causa tumah. Un tarocco intero provoca tumah (se preso) solo da un corpo sepolto nudo in una bara di marmo e coperto da una copertura di marmo, fino a quando non si sa con certezza che non vi è alcuna mescolanza del marcio di un indumento o di legno o di altri terra. Ma un cadavere che è sepolto nella sua veste o in una bara di legno o terra non ha rakav e, allo stesso modo, un cadavere sepolto senza un arto.]
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.
