Eduyos 6:3-7:1

Eduyos 6:3

Rabbi Eliezer says that an olive-sized piece of flesh that was severed from a living person’s organ is ritually unclean; Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya declare it clean. Rabbi Nechunya says that a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a living person’s organ is ritually unclean but Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua declare it clean. They asked Rabbi Eliezer why he declared the olive-sized piece of flesh unclean and he replied that an organ from a living person is like a complete corpse; just like an olive-sized piece of flesh severed from a corpse transmits uncleanliness, so does an olive-sized piece of flesh from a living person’s organ. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya disagreed with this logic on the following basis: If Rabbi Eliezer declares unclean an olive-sized piece of flesh that was severed from a corpse as he does a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from it, then he should declare unclean an olive-sized piece of flesh that was severed from a living person’s organ just as he does a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from it. They asked Rabbi Nechunya why he declared a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a living person’s organ to be ritually unclean. He replied that we consider an organ from a living person to be like a complete corpse. Just like a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a corpse is unclean, the same is true with a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a living person’s organ. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed with this logic on the following basis: If Rabbi Nechunya declares unclean a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a corpse as he does an olive-sized piece of flesh that was severed from it, then he should declare unclean a bone the size of a barleycorn that was severed from a living person’s organ just as he does an olive-sized piece of flesh that was severed from it. They asked Rabbi Eliezer why he differentiates between flesh and bone – he should either declare them both to be ritually unclean or ritually clean! He replied that the ritual uncleanliness of flesh is greater than that of bone because the flesh of animal carcasses and of sheratzim (“creeping things”) can convey impurity, which is not the case with bones. Also, if a living person’s organ has enough flesh on it, it can convey uncleanliness through contact, carrying and being under the same roof. If flesh is missing, it is still ritually unclean but if bone is missing, then it is clean. They asked Rabbi Nechunya why he differentiates between flesh and bone – he should either declare them both to be ritually unclean or ritually clean! He replied that the ritual uncleanliness of bone is greater than that of flesh because flesh that is severed from a living person is ritually clean while an organ that is severed and is in its natural state is ritually unclean. Furthermore, an olive-sized piece of flesh can convey uncleanliness through contact, carrying and being under the same roof and the majority of a corpse’s bones can convey uncleanliness through contact, carrying and being under the same roof. If flesh is missing, it is ritually clean but if bones are missing from the majority, then even though it no longer conveys ritual impurity by being under the same roof, it still conveys impurity through contact and carrying. Also, if all of a corpse’s flesh is smaller than olive-size, it is ritually clean but the majority of a body’s frame or the major number of its bones are ritually unclean even if they are smaller than a quarter kav (a measure of approximately 16 oz.). They asked Rabbi Yehoshua why he declared both the flesh and the bone to be clean. He replied that just because we can say these things about a dead person where there are rules about the majority of the body’s frame, a quarter kav of bones and two fistfuls of decay, that doesn’t mean we can say them about a living person, where the rules about the majority of the body’s frame, a quarter kav of bones and two fistfuls of decay do not apply.

Eduyos 7:1

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Tzadok testified that if a sheep was put aside to redeem a firstborn donkey but it died, then the kohein receives nothing. This is because Rabbi Eliezer says that the owner of the donkey is responsible for the sheep just like one is responsible for the five coins to be given a kohein for a pidyon haben but the Sages say that people are only as responsible for it as they are for the redemption money of second tithe (i.e., not at all).