corpse

A man who had corpse uncleanness who pressed olives or grapes: If its bulk was exactly that of an egg, the juice remains clean provided he does not touch the place on which the liquid is; But [if the bulk was] more than that of an egg, the juice becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop came out, it became unclean by contact with an egg's bulk. If the person was a zav or a zavah [the juice] becomes unclean even if only one berry [was pressed out], for as soon as the first drop came out it became unclean by carrying. If a zav milked a goat, the milk becomes unclean, for as soon as the first drop comes out it becomes unclean by carrying.

If an egg's bulk of food was left in the sun and it was lessened, and so also in the case of an olive's bulk of corpse, an olive's bulk of carrion, a lentil's bulk of a sheretz, an olive's bulk of piggul, an olive's bulk of notar, or an olive's bulk of forbidden fat they become clean; Nor is one liable on account of these for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat. If they were then left out in the rain and they swelled, they become unclean and guilt is incurred on account of them for transgressing the law of piggul, notar or forbidden fat.

An olive's bulk of corpse was held in a raven's mouth and it is doubtful whether it overshadowed a person or vessels in a private domain: The person's condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean But the vessels’ condition of doubt is deemed clean. One who drew water in ten buckets and a dead sheretz was found in one of them, it alone is deemed unclean but all the others remain clean. If one poured out from one vessel into another and a dead sheretz was found in the lower vessel, the upper one remains clean.

A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain, And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion, A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion; A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles, Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which, Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which: Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.

A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain, And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion, A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion; A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles, Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which, Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which: Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.

One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner.

One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner.

If a corpse fell into it or an unclean person walked in it, and a clean person drank of it, he is clean. The same rule applies to the water of pools, the water of cisterns, the water of ditches, the water of caverns, the water of rain flows which have stopped, and mikvehs of less than forty seahs. They are all clean during the time of rain; When the rain has stopped those near to a city or to a road are unclean, and those distant remain clean until the majority of people pass [that way].

Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round. If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah. The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz. Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean.

If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah.

A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, He enables her to eat terumah And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; He inherits and transmits inheritance; He who kills him is guilty of murder, And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man.

Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness.

Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.

In earlier times they used to say: a woman who is dwelling in clean blood may pour out water for [washing] the pesah sacrifice. They changed their minds and said: in respect of consecrated food she is like one who came in contact with a person that was subject to corpse uncleanness, this is according to the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: even as one who is subject to corpse uncleanness.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean. In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man. This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav. For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a corpse no such uncleanness is conveyed. Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.

Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.

A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below: If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness," and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a "father of uncleanness," but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.

A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below: If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness," and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a "father of uncleanness," but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.

A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below: If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a "father of uncleanness," and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse. If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a "father of uncleanness," but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.

When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Nahoraï, the sister of Rebbi Judah the prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they made them like a corpse of obligation.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman, Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: He who prunes his vineyard down to less than a hand-breadth subjects it to orlah because of the bad appearance. The Sages say, only if he prunes down to the ground. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, in the name of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob: He who forms a heap from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, is subject to the Great Heave because of the bad appearance. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob in the name of the House of Shammai: A corpse in the public domain induces impurity four cubits around it, to sustain its dignity. Rebbi Mana said, this last statement is in the name of the House of Shammai; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all are in the name of the House of Shammai. Rebbi Jonah said, also that which we stated here is because of the bad appearance. If it were not so, what would be the difference whether one stands on the ground or on the terrace?

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai was hidden in a cave for thirteen years, in a carob cave, until his body was covered with rust. At the end of thirteen years he said, should I not go out and see what voice is in the world? He went and sat at the entrance to the cave. He saw a catcher out to catch birds spreading out his net. He heard a heavenly voice saying “acquitted”, and [the bird] was saved. He said, no bird will be adjudicated without Heaven, so much less a human. When he saw that words of intercession were given, he said, let us go down and warm ourselves in the public baths of Tiberias. He said, we need to do something like our forefathers (Gen. 33:18): “He graced the entrance to the city,” they were putting up duty free shops and selling at wholesale prices. He said, let us purify Tiberias. He took lupines, cut them up and threw them down in irregular fashion. Where there was a corpse it was floating and came to the surface. A Samaritan saw him and said, should I not make fun of this old Jew? He took a corpse, went, and buried it at a purified place. He came to Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai and said to him, did you not purify place X? Come, and I shall take out [a corpse] from there! Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai saw by the Holy Spirit that he had put it there. He said, I decree that the upper ones shall go down and the lower ones come up. So it happenend to him. When he passed by Magdala, he heard the voice of the scribe who said, so bar Ioḥai purifies Tiberias? He said, it should come upon me if I did not hear that Tiberias once will be purified. Even so, you did not believe me! Immediately he turned into a bone heap.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai was hidden in a cave for thirteen years, in a carob cave, until his body was covered with rust. At the end of thirteen years he said, should I not go out and see what voice is in the world? He went and sat at the entrance to the cave. He saw a catcher out to catch birds spreading out his net. He heard a heavenly voice saying “acquitted”, and [the bird] was saved. He said, no bird will be adjudicated without Heaven, so much less a human. When he saw that words of intercession were given, he said, let us go down and warm ourselves in the public baths of Tiberias. He said, we need to do something like our forefathers (Gen. 33:18): “He graced the entrance to the city,” they were putting up duty free shops and selling at wholesale prices. He said, let us purify Tiberias. He took lupines, cut them up and threw them down in irregular fashion. Where there was a corpse it was floating and came to the surface. A Samaritan saw him and said, should I not make fun of this old Jew? He took a corpse, went, and buried it at a purified place. He came to Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai and said to him, did you not purify place X? Come, and I shall take out [a corpse] from there! Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai saw by the Holy Spirit that he had put it there. He said, I decree that the upper ones shall go down and the lower ones come up. So it happenend to him. When he passed by Magdala, he heard the voice of the scribe who said, so bar Ioḥai purifies Tiberias? He said, it should come upon me if I did not hear that Tiberias once will be purified. Even so, you did not believe me! Immediately he turned into a bone heap.

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai was hidden in a cave for thirteen years, in a carob cave, until his body was covered with rust. At the end of thirteen years he said, should I not go out and see what voice is in the world? He went and sat at the entrance to the cave. He saw a catcher out to catch birds spreading out his net. He heard a heavenly voice saying “acquitted”, and [the bird] was saved. He said, no bird will be adjudicated without Heaven, so much less a human. When he saw that words of intercession were given, he said, let us go down and warm ourselves in the public baths of Tiberias. He said, we need to do something like our forefathers (Gen. 33:18): “He graced the entrance to the city,” they were putting up duty free shops and selling at wholesale prices. He said, let us purify Tiberias. He took lupines, cut them up and threw them down in irregular fashion. Where there was a corpse it was floating and came to the surface. A Samaritan saw him and said, should I not make fun of this old Jew? He took a corpse, went, and buried it at a purified place. He came to Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai and said to him, did you not purify place X? Come, and I shall take out [a corpse] from there! Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai saw by the Holy Spirit that he had put it there. He said, I decree that the upper ones shall go down and the lower ones come up. So it happenend to him. When he passed by Magdala, he heard the voice of the scribe who said, so bar Ioḥai purifies Tiberias? He said, it should come upon me if I did not hear that Tiberias once will be purified. Even so, you did not believe me! Immediately he turned into a bone heap.

It was stated: If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is pure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated there: “Its undercarriage, if it can be separated it is not connected to it, will not be measured with it, does not protect in a tent with a corpse; one may not drag it on the Sabbath if it contains coins.” And it was stated for this, if there were coins on it but they fell off, it may be dragged. Rav Sheshet said, this is Rebbi Sineon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, “if it burned out it is permitted to move it.” They said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he forgot. You cannot do this, as we have stated there: “if it cannot be separated it is connected to it, will be measured with it, does protect in a tent with a corpse; one may drag it on the Sabbath even though it contains coins.” Can you say about this, it is according to everybody, if he forgot?

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated there: “Its undercarriage, if it can be separated it is not connected to it, will not be measured with it, does not protect in a tent with a corpse; one may not drag it on the Sabbath if it contains coins.” And it was stated for this, if there were coins on it but they fell off, it may be dragged. Rav Sheshet said, this is Rebbi Sineon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, “if it burned out it is permitted to move it.” They said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he forgot. You cannot do this, as we have stated there: “if it cannot be separated it is connected to it, will be measured with it, does protect in a tent with a corpse; one may drag it on the Sabbath even though it contains coins.” Can you say about this, it is according to everybody, if he forgot?

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “He who opens a boil on the Sabbath, if to make an opening he is liable, if to remove fluid he is not liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “One who catches a snake on the Sabbath, if he is active that it should not bite him he is not liable, if for medicine he is liable.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “About rural dishes that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a sufferer from gonorrhea.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this is correct. If for a need, that is what we have stated, “if for medicine he is liable.” This implies that there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.”

MISHNAH: One does all that is needed for a corpse, one anoints, and rinses, on condition that none of his limbs be moved. One takes away the pillow under him and lays him on sand so he can wait. One ties the jaw, not to lift it but lest it descend. Similarly, if a beam broke one supports it by a bench or the long logs of a bed-frame, not to lift it but lest it descend. One does not close the eyelids of a corpse on the Sabbath, nor on a weekday at the moment of death. Anybody who closes the eyes at the moment of death is spilling blood.

MISHNAH: One does all that is needed for a corpse, one anoints, and rinses, on condition that none of his limbs be moved. One takes away the pillow under him and lays him on sand so he can wait. One ties the jaw, not to lift it but lest it descend. Similarly, if a beam broke one supports it by a bench or the long logs of a bed-frame, not to lift it but lest it descend. One does not close the eyelids of a corpse on the Sabbath, nor on a weekday at the moment of death. Anybody who closes the eyes at the moment of death is spilling blood.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevices, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass_. An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass_. An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass_. An argument de minore ad maius. Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If an individual could learn from the public for the Pesaḥ, the officiant during the rest of the year might infer from the public for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Immi asked: how do you explain this “impure”? Impure by the impurity of gonorrhea or the impurity of skin disease? But did we not state, “missing atonement”? If he desecrates when he had been immersed, not so much more before he was immersed! How do you explain “immersed on this day”? If he immersed himself on that day because of a corpse. Come and see: the one impure from a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a corpse? But he must be immersed on that day because of a crawling animal. Come and see: the immersed on that day because of a corpse does not desecrate, not so much more one immersed on that day because of a crawling animal? Rebbi Samuel bar Yudan said, people having touched sufferers from gonorrhea. The rabbis of Caesarea explain everything from a sufferer from gonorrhea. “One immersed on this day,” if he had one episode. “Impure” (in the impurity of the dead) if he had two episodes. “Missing atonement,” if he had three episodes. Are people having touched a sufferer from gonorrhea like a sufferer from gonorrhea in the opinion of the Southerners? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices, the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers. What is iniquity of the sacrifices? The blood of a sufferer from gonorrhea? No, what was touched by a sufferer from gonorrhea. Similarly, the iniquity of the sacrificers, who touched a sufferer from gonorrhea. This implies that if the public were impure because they had touched sufferers from gonorrhea or women suffering from flux, they cannot make it in impurity.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

A nazir who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain (on Oassover) [not related to the Pesaḥ.] The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir does not shave, since we have stated there: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, [one is liable] if entering the Sanctuary, but any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, [one is not liable] if entering the Sanctuary.” What kind of doubt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the start of the Chapter. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, the one here. A person who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain for the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Hoshaia said, he should be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one sends him on a far journey. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he became impure by the impurity of the broken field, one sends him on a far journey. The community who became impure by a doubt relating to a private domain on Passover. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they should present it in their doubt. Does the great Rebbi Hoshaia say, it should be made in impurity? Rebbi Hoshaia (said) [also agrees] that it should be presented in their doubt; what Rebbi Hoshaia said referred only to restrictions.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse, I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

Impure by a corpse. I have not only impure by a corpse; impure by genital discharge, impure by skin disease, from where? The verse says impure (by the dead), it added. Why does the verse say, impure by a corpse? A man impure by a corpse is pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, but a public impure by the impurity of a corpse are not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. Those impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease are pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. They made the impurity of idolatry equal to the impure by genital discharge or impure by skin disease. If Israel had the possibility to build the Temple, individuals celebrate the Second Pesaḥ but the public does not celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. Rebbi Jehudah says, the public celebrates the Second Pesaḥ since we find that Hezekia celebrated the Second Pesaḥ. This is what is written, for most of the people from Ephraim and Manasse, etc.

It happened that one preceded another to within four cubits of the altar. The other took the knife and stuck it into his heart. Rebbi Sadoq stood on the steps of the Hall and said to them, listen to me, my brethren, the House of Israel. It is written, if a corpse be found. etc. Your elders and your judges shall go out. From where do we have to measure, from the Temple or from the courtyards? All the people started to cry. While they still were crying, the father of the child came and told them, I am atoning for you. The child is still fluttering, so the knife did not become impure. This teaches that impurity was worse for them than spilling blood, a shame.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

There, we have stated: “About rural pans, that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, even if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea they are pure since their production was not finished.” It turns out that the minority opinion here corresponds to the majority opinion there and the minority opinion there corresponds to the majority opinion here.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits [of him] it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits [of him] it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits [of him] it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed, with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

In any case mentioned in the Torah for whom a Cohen defiles himself an Israel mourns. They added to these his maternal brother and sister and his married sister; he mourns and is in deep mourning but would not defile himself. For his preliminarily wedded wife he neither mourns nor is a deep mourner nor defiles himself. It was stated: About any one would mourn one joins in the mourning. Rav’s sister died. He commanded to his son Ḥiyya, when you will visit us, take off your shoes. The sons of Rebbi Ḥanina the brother of Rebbi Mana, died. They came and asked Rebbi Yose, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. Does one have to sleep on an overturned bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied for corpse digging a grave and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

If his father-in-law or his mother-in-law or one of his wife’s relatives died, he cannot force her neither to put on kohl, nor make-up but behaves with her just as she behaves. And so he, if her father-in-law or her mother-in-law or one of her husband’s relatives died, puts on neither kohl nor make-up but behaves with him just as he behaves. Samuel said, they said this only about his father-in-law or his mother-in-law. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he dwells with him. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Judah bar Pazi. He asked him, did you hear this from your father? He said to him, my father did not say so. In fact, the brother of Bar Nehemiah’s wife died. They came and asked him, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied digging a grave for a corpse and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

MISHNAH: If [the corpse] was found hidden in a heap, or hanging from a tree, or floating on the water, one did not break the neck as it is written “on the earth” but not hidden in a heap, “fallen” but not hanging from a tree, “on the field” but not floating on the water. If he was found close to the border, a town in which Gentiles live, or a town without a court, one did measure only from a town with a court. If he was found exactly in the middle between two towns, both bring a total of two calves, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; but the Sages say that one town brings one calf whose neck is broken but two towns do not bring two calves, and Jerusalem does not bring a calf whose neck is broken.

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

HALAKHAH: “Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir,” etc. Impurity, as it is written: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”

MISHNAH: Three kinds are forbidden for the nazir: Impurity, shaving, and consuming produce of the vine. Impurity and shaving are more severe than the prohibition of produce of the vine since impurity and shaving require him to start again, but produce of the vine does not require him to start again. The prohibition of produce of the vine is more severe than impurity and shaving since produce of the vine is never permitted but impurity and shaving are permitted for a commanded shaving and a corpse of obligation. Impurity is more severe than shaving since for impurity he has to start again from the beginning and is obligated for a sacrifice, but for shaving he has to start again for at most 30 days and is not obligated for a sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: Impurity, as it is written: “During all the days he vowed to the Eternal he shall not come close to a human corpse.” Shaving, as it is written: “During all the days of his nazir vow, a shaving knife shall not come onto his head.” Anything from the vine, as it is written: “During all the days of his vow, of anything coming from the wine-vine [he shall not eat.]”

He is permitted commanded shavings. Not only to signify his skin disease but also to signify his scall, to know whether it spread or did not spread. “And a corpse of obligation.” That is what we have stated: “If they were walking and came upon a corpse of obligation.”

He is permitted commanded shavings. Not only to signify his skin disease but also to signify his scall, to know whether it spread or did not spread. “And a corpse of obligation.” That is what we have stated: “If they were walking and came upon a corpse of obligation.”

MISHNAH: The High Priest and the nazir do not defile themselves for their relatives. If they were walking on a road and found a corpse of obligation, Rebbi Eliezer says, the High Priest shall defile himself but the nazir shall not defile himself. But the Sages say, the nazir shall defile himself but the High Priest shall not defile himself. Rebbi Eliezer said to them, the Priest shall defile himself, who does not bring a sacrifice for his defilement, but the nazir shall not defile himself, who has to bring a sacrifice for his defilement. They told him, the nazir shall defile himself, whose holiness is temporary, but the Priest shall not defile himself, whose holiness is permanent.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest and the nazir,” etc. It is written: “He shall not go close to a dead body.” Where do we hold? If to forbid non-relatives, is he not also under the rules of a simple priest? If it cannot refer to non-relatives, refer it to relatives. It is written: “Not to go close to a dead body,” and you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said, from here repeated prohibitions in the Torah. But it is to permit the corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ The man shall not defile himself, in the midst of his people” he may not defile himself. But he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation. Some understand it from the following: “ To profane himself.” He may not defile himself to profane himself; he defiles himself for a corpse of obligation.

Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation. They objected, are there not Gentiles? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword. “Bury!” A positive commandment. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body.

Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation. They objected, are there not Gentiles? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword. “Bury!” A positive commandment. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body.

Some want to derive it from the following: “For a hanged person is blasphemy.” Anybody warned about blasphemy is warned about a corpse of obligation. Anybody not warned about blasphemy is not warned about a corpse of obligation. They objected, are there not Gentiles? Those executed by hanging, this exludes those executed by the sword. “Bury!” A positive commandment. From where do you add the sword he was killed with, the gallows on which he was hanged, the towel with which he was strangled? Why does the verse say, “you shall bury him”? I could think he alone is buried; the verse says “bury, you shall bury him”, a burial for him, and his gallows, and his stone. How does one do it? One digs down three [handbreadths], so the plough shall not unearth him. “You shall bury him”, whole and not partially. “You shall bury him”, from here that if he left anything [unburied], he did not do anything, for it is said “bury, you shall bury him”. From here that it is not a corpse of obligation unless it consists of his head with most of the body.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

What is a corpse of obligation? Anyone for whom he shouts and nobody comes. If the villagers come, he refrains. How many? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements. If he is not needed; but if he is needed, it is different. If [the deceased] is not recognized. But if he is recognized, it is different. If it is not according to his honor; but if it is according to his honor, it is different. For the Patriarch it is his honor.

May a Cohen defile himself for the Patriarch? When Rebbi Judah the Prince died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Yehudinai, the sister of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa said, in their death they treated them like a corpse of obligation.