Nazir - Daf 52
- If an ant missing a limb is still considered a whole creature - Baraisa re: a chomet
On the previous Daf, Rava asked: נמלה שחסרה מהו – Regarding an ant missing a limb, what is the halachah? Normally, consuming an entire creature incurs malkos even with less than a shiur of kezayis. שיעורא גמירין לה והא חסר – Was the concept of a “creature” taught as a shiur, and this is deficient in missing a limb, או בריה גמירי לה והאיכא – or was consuming a “creature” taught, i.e., a living being, and there is a creature able to live with its deficiency? On our Daf, the Gemara brings a Baraisa which derives that the shiur for a sheretz to be metamei requires עד שיגע במקצתן שהוא ככולן – until he touches a part of them that is tantamount to its entirety in significance, ושיערו חכמים בכעדשה – and the Sages assessed it to be the size of a lentil, שכן החומט תחלת ברייתו בכעדשה – because a chomet (the smallest sheretz) is the size of a lentil at its creation, so any part of a sheretz this size is significant. The Gemara argues that if a creature missing a limb could still be metamei, then a chomet even smaller than a lentil at its creation would be metamei! The Gemara answers that a chomet could not acquire a life-force if it was missing any limbs; only once alive could it continue living without a limb.
- שדרה וגולגולת תנן, או דלמא או שדרה או גולגולת
The Gemara poses a question: שדרה וגולגולת תנן, או דלמא או שדרה או גולגולת – Does the Mishnah mean a spinal column and a skull together are metamei, or perhaps it means either a spinal column or a skull is metamei? The first proof the Gemara attempts is a Baraisa which states: שדרה שגירד רוב עילעין שבה טהורה – A spinal column that most of its ribs were severed is not considered a spinal column and is tahor,ובקבר אפילו משוברת או מפורקת – but in a grave, even if its ribs are broken or separated, טמאה מפני הקבר – it is tamei, because of the grave which deems them connected. This seems to imply that as long as the ribs are attached, the spinal column would be metamei, even if the skull is not present. The Gemara rejects this proof, because the Baraisa may be discussing the laws of a spine together with a skull.
- The six cases disputed by Rebbe Akiva and the Rabbonon
The Gemara attempts another proof from a list of six cases which Rebbe Akiva ruled tamei and the Rabbonon ruled tahor, and Rebbe Akiva later retracted: על אבר מן המת שבא משני מתים – About a limb combined from two corpses, ועל אבר מן החי שבא משני בני אדם –about a limb combined from two living people, ועל חצי קב עצמות שבא משני מתים –about a half-kav of bones combined from two corpses, ועל רביעית דם הבא משנים –about a reviis of blood combined from two corpses, ועל עצם כשעורה שנחלק לשנים –about a bone fragment the size of barley which split in two, והשדרה והגולגולת – and a spinal column and skull [combined from two corpses]. If a spinal column and skull would each be metamei independently, then the list totals seven cases, not six! The Gemara offers four answers: the machlokes of עצם כשעורה is not to be counted, because the disputant is one individual and not the majority opinion; that אבר מן המת and אבר מן החי are to be counted as one; that עצם כשעורה is not counted because a nazir would not shave based on its ohel (which is not metamei); or that this list refers to those which Rebbe Akiva retracted, thus the case of a reviis of blood, which he did not retract, is not counted among the six.
