Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa says - that a corpse that was buried with clothes, or in a wooden coffin or on a floor of bricks is not subject to the Din of 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev'.

(b) This will not be the case however - if he is buried on a stone floor (since stone does not tend to grind to dust like a brick does.

(c) Even if one collects four or five spoons-full of dust from a corpse that was buried with clothes ... (and we can be certain that there is at least one spoonful of dust from the corpse) - the Din of 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' will not apply.

(a) The dust does not have a Din of 'Rekev' - unless it comprises flesh, veins and bones.

(b) Rava asked from a Beraisa 'Rekev ha'Ba min ha'Basar Tahor', implying that if it came from bones alone, it is 'Rekev'. Ula however, interprets it to mean that dust from flesh alone is Tahor, unless it incorporates bones (which in turn, is only possible if there are veins to hold them together).

(c) The Tana cannot mean to say that it is Tahor until it also comprises bones and veins - because then, he ought to have said 'min ha'Basar ve'Etzem Tahor' (Tosfos).

(d) Despite the fact that it is impossible for there to be flesh on the bones without veins, Ula mention veins to preclude the Rekev from a stillborn baby whose veins have not yet fully developed (Tosfos).

(a) Rav Shmuel bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that dust that comes from each of two corpses - becomes 'Galgalin' (or 'Gangalin') to each other (preventing the Din of 'Rekev' from taking effect in either one).

(b) Rava reconciles Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa 'Rekev ha'Ba mi'Shtei Meisim, Tamei' - by establishing the Beraisa when each corpse was buried separately (even though only half a 'M'lo Tarvad remained from each one), whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking when they were buried together.

(c) Rava finds it necessary to say that the dust had been completely eaten by moths - to teach us that even if part of the remaining dust was from the heel, it nevertheless has the Din of Rekev (this will be explained shortly).

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah says that the shorn hair of a Meis that is buried with him - is 'Galgalin' to the corpse, preventing the Din 'Rekev' from taking effect.

(b) The Mishnah in Ohalos states that every part of a Meis is Metamei except for three - his teeth, his hair and his nails.

(c) This speaks even mi'de'Rabbanan. Other parts of a Meis are Metamei mi'd'Oraysa. The part of a Meis which is a Safek (whether it is Metamei min ha'Torah or mi'de'Rabbanan) is - his skin.

(d) However, even the three parts are Metamei - as long as they are still attached to the Meis.

(a) Chizkiyah asks whether hair that was due to have been shaved is Metamei or whether we say that whatever is due to be shaved is as if it was shaved. We cannot resolve Chizkiyah's She'eilah from Rebbi Yochanan, who said earlier that hair that has been shorn makes Galgalin - because the implication is (not, that if it has not been shorn, it does not, but) that if it has not been shorn, it is a Safek.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether the Din of Rekev applies to the heel or not - because the heel has no life in it, with the result that it rots quicker than other parts of the body, giving rise to the possibility that it is not included in Rekev.

(c) We try to prove Rebbi Nasan b'Rebbi Oshaya's Beraisa 'Rekev ha'Ba mi'Shtei Meisim, Tamei' (according to Rava's interpretation, that they buried each one separately and that the bodies became eaten by moths until between them, only a M'lo Tarvad of Rekev remained) that Rekev does apply to a heel - because if it did not, perhaps the 'M'lo Tarvad that remained was from the heel, so why did the Tana rule that Rekev applies?

(d) To refute the proof, we establish the She'eilah - when it was not the entire body which turned into Rekev (in which case the Rekev of the heel would combine with that of the rest of the body), but only one leg including the heel. There, it may have been the heel which caused the entire leg to rot quicker (in which case, it might make Galgalin). In any event, the She'eilah remains unresolved.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks whether a fetus makes Galgalin or not. The S'vara to say that it ...

1. ... does not - is based on the principle 'Ubar Yerech Imo'.
2. ... does - is because it is normally destined to leave the body, in which case it cannot be considered an intrinsic part of it.

(b) Assuming that we take into account that the fetus is due to leave the mother's body, semen inside her body, which has not yet formed, might still be considered part of her. On the other hand, it might make Galgalin - because it came from an external source (and cannot therefore be considered part of her body).

7)

(a) The excrement in the body of a corpse might not be considered an intrinsic part of it (regarding Rekev, because, like the semen, it comes from an external source. On the other hand, it might be considered part of the body, even if semen is not - because it comes from food without which, a person could not live (making it an intrinsic part of the body).

(b) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika asks whether the skin makes Galgalin, and Rav Huna bar Manoach asks about the mucus and the phlegm. Assuming all of the above do make Galgalin, to prevent making Galgalin from ...

1. ... the excrement, the mucus and the phlegm - one would have had to given the person three doses of water drawn from a fountain that flows between the two date-palms situated outside Masa Mechsaya, (the sole way of clearing one's system completely).
2. ... the skin and the hair - one would have had to have bathed the body in the hot springs of Teveryah (to loosen the skin from the body), and to have smeared the body with a certain ointment that removes the hair.

(c) The heating with hot water from the springs of Teveryah must precede the smearing of the ointment - in order to include the roots of the hair that grow between the flesh and the skin.

(d) It is possible to reconcile Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika with Chizkiyah, who asked above whether hair that is due to be shaved makes Galgalin or not (implying that hair that is not due to be shaved does not make Galgalin) - by establishing him like Rabah bar bar Chanah, according to whom hair that has been shaved definitely makes Galgalin, and hair that has not (and that is due to be shaved is a Safek), only he adds even hair that is not due to be cut in the Safek Tosfos).

(a) Abaye says that Rekev does not apply to a corpse that was ground - because the Halachah of Rekev was only said concerning rot, and not on a ground corpse (Tosfos).

(b) We ask whether Rekev will apply to a ground corpse that subsequently rotted. Despite the fact that, at the time of rotting, the corpse comprised flesh, bones and veins, Rekev might not apply in such a case - because it came from a body that had changed from its original state (Tosfos).

(a) Ula quotes a Beraisa that the Din of Rekev does not apply to a corpse that is incomplete, and neither does the Din of Tefusah or that of Shechunas Kevaros. The Din of ...

1. ... Tefusah is - that if someone comes across a corpse that is lying in a regular position, he is obligated to bury it together with all the soft earth upon which it is lying and three Tefachim of virgin soil.
2. ... Shechunas Kevaros is - that if one comes across three Meisim and there are between four and eight Amos between the first and the second and the second and the third, one must consider them as part of a burial-ground, which entails measuring a certain distance in all directions to ascertain whether there are more graves in that vicinity or not (as will be explained later).

(b) Considering that, in the latter case, when all's said and done, the three corpses indicate more graves in the vicinity - we will attribute the Din that one of the corpses being incomplete negates the Din of Shechunas Kevaros to the fact that it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai (which is the source of the basic Halachah).

(c) When one Tana in the Mishnah in Iduyos tries to learn from a k'Zayis of flesh that came from a Meis (and that is Metamei) that a k'Zayis of flesh that came from a live person should be Metamei too, his opponent cited the three cases of 'Rov', 'Rova' and 'M'lo Tarvad'. By ...

1. ... 'Rov' - the Tana means 'Rov Binyan' or 'Rov Minyan'
2. ... 'Rova' - he means 'Rova Kav Atzamos'.

(d) And he cites these three cases - to repudiate the first Tana's Limud from a Meis to a Chai.

(a) We initially understand the Beraisa's distinction between a M'lo Tarvad Rekev from a live person and a M'lo Tarvad Rekev from a dead one - to be that a spoonful of Rekev from one limb of a live person is not Tamei, whereas the equivalent by a dead person is.

(b) This appears to clash with Ula's Beraisa (that the Din of Rekev does not apply to a corpse that is incomplete). In order to reconcile the two Beraisos, we re-interpret the distinction - to be that whereas by a live person there is no case of M'lo Tarvad Rekev that is Metamei, by a corpse there is (when the corpse is complete).

(a) Rava asks whether the limb of a live person that rotted before he died - should not have a Din of Rekev (even after his death), seeing as the Halachah was only said regarding the Rekev that came from a dead person, or whether the point is that he is now dead (and it makes no difference at which stage the Rekev developed).

(b) We refute the proof from the previous Beraisa, which states 'Tomar *be'Chai*, she'Ein Lo ... M'lo Tarvad', by explaining that by a rotted limb of a Chai, there is no Din Rekev at all (even after he dies, whereas by a Meis, there is), in the same way as we just explained to answer the previous Kashya.