וְכֹ֨ל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּ֜ע עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה בַּֽחֲלַל־חֶ֙רֶב֙ א֣וֹ בְמֵ֔ת אֽוֹ־בְעֶ֥צֶם אָדָ֖ם א֣וֹ בְקָ֑בֶר יִטְמָ֖א שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃
И всякий, кто в открытом поле коснется того, кто убит мечом, или того, кто умирает от себя, или кости человека, или могилы, будет нечистым семь дней.
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle150Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently151Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively152Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently62“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh153Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked154He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone155Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain156For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person157Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.
Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim
“ ‘Field Stones’84Reading of the Venice print; the Leyden ms. has two dots over the ב. But also in Sifra Šemini 4|6|5 it is stated on Lev. 11:27: “ ‘All that walks on its soles’ that is the monkey, ‘all that walks’ includes hedgehog and squirrel mole, field stones and seals.” אבני השדה for אדני השדה refers to Job 5:23: “Your covenant is with ‘field stones’.” is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.
Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim
There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”197This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”.
A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed198Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.
The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure199Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.
A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed198Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.
The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure199Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.195As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.