ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 51
NAZIR 51 - May the Zechus of dedicating this Daf bring a Refu'as ha'Nefesh
and Refu'as ha'Guf for Menachem Yitzchak ben Raila Kushner; may he merit to
see yet more grandchildren and great-grandchildren grow up in Eretz Yisrael
and live a life of Torah. Dedicated by his children.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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'.
(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).
2. ... does - is because it is normally destined to leave the body, in which
case it cannot be considered an intrinsic part of it.
(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).
(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.
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.
(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.
(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).
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
(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'
(d) And he cites these three cases - to repudiate the first Tana's Limud
from a Meis to a Chai.
2. ... 'Rova' - he means 'Rova Kav Atzamos'.
(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