Nazir

Our Rabbis taught: What type of corpse produces corpsemould [that can defile]? A corpse buried naked in a marble sarcophagus or on a stone floor is a corpse which produces corpse-mould. If it is buried in its shroud, or in a wooden coffin, or on a brick floor, it is a corpse which does not produce corpse-mould [that can defile]. 'Ulla said: Corpse-mould [to defile] must come from flesh and sinew and bone. Raba raised [the following] objection to 'Ulla. [It has been taught:] Corpse-mould derived from flesh is clean. This implies that if it be from bones it is unclean, even though there be no flesh present? — Say rather as follows: Corpse-mould derived from flesh is clean, unless there be bone in the flesh. But there are no sinews!  — It is impossible that there should be flesh and bones without sinews. Rab Samuel  b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: Two corpses buried together act as gilgelin  to each other. R. Nathan [son of R. Oshaia]  raised the following objection. [It has been taught that corpse-mould] derived from two corpses is unclean? — Said Raba, [we suppose that] each was buried separately and decayed and together' formed a ladleful of corpse-mould. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said that R. Johanan said: If a man cut [the corpse's] hair and buried it with it, it acts as gilgelin [and the resultant mould does not defile]. We have learnt elsewhere: Every part of a corpse is unclean except the teeth, the hair and the nails; but whilst still attached [to the corpse], they are all unclean.  Hezekiah propounded: What is the law in the case of hair long enough to be polled,  and nails long enough to be pared?  Do we say that anything which is fit to be cut is as though already cut,  or perhaps they are after all still attached?  — But cannot the question be resolved from [the dictum of] Rabbah b. Bar Hanah?  The reason [that the hair acts as gilgelin] is because he cut it, but if he does not cut it, it does not?  He [Rabbah b. Bar Hanah] might have meant this: If he cut it, it acts as gilgelin; but if he did not cut it, he was in doubt [as to its effect]. R. Jeremiah propounded: What is the law regarding corpsemould coming from the heel?  Does our tradition specify corpsemould derived from a whole corpse, but not corpse-mould resulting from [the decomposition of] the heel, or is there no difference? — Come and hear: R. Nathan son of R. Oshaia learnt that corpsemould derived from two corpses is unclean. Now if you assume that what comes from the heel is not [counted as corpse-mould], then, if we look to the one [corpse], [the mould in the mixture] may have been taken from the heel, and if to the other, it may have been taken from the heel?  — Where the whole corpse has decayed and [the corpse-mould] has been taken from the heel, there it would certainly be [counted as corpse-mould],  but here the question is when one limb  has decomposed and [the mould] has been taken from the heel. This was left unsolved. R. Jeremiah propounded: Does a fetus in a woman's womb act as gilgelin or not? Since a Master has affirmed that a fetus counts as the thigh of its mother, is it therefore part of her body and so does not act as gilgelin, or perhaps since it would eventually leave [the womb], does it count as separated from her? Should you decide that since a fetus will eventually leave [the womb], it is separate from her,