Explanation: [Bricks] easily crumble by themselves. [A Mes buried with any of these things] has no Rekev.

Even if one took four or five spoonfuls of its Rekev, that surely there is a spoonful from the Mes' body, it is Tahor, like it says in Nidah (27b) "just like at the beginning, something else is Galgalin (causes that it has no Rekev)..."

Inference: No one argues about this. If something else was mixed with it at the beginning, [its Rekev] is not Metamei.

Explanation: After moths consumed them, and only half a spoonful remained [from each Mes], since each was buried alone, they have the law of Rekev.

Question: Why does it discuss when only a spoonful remained [and no more]?

Answer: It says so for a bigger Chidush. Even when only a spoonful remained from both of them [together], and now there is Rekev from the heel, even so, the Shi'ur is a spoonful.

Below, we resolve from this the question "Rekev from the heel - what is the law?

Also according to the rejection, we learn that if a Mes totally decayed, Rekev from the heel joins with the other corrosion to a spoonful.

Explanation #1: [He asks whether hair destined to be cut] when it is connected to the Mes, is it as if it was cut, and it is not Metamei even when it is connected to the Mes;

Or, perhaps it is Metamei while it is still connected to it!

Explanation #2: Some say that we ask about Galgalin. Is it as if it was cut, and it becomes Galgalin, or not?

Rejection: Presumably, Explanation #1 is correct, for [Chizkiyah's question] is brought regarding our Mishnah of "everything in a Mes is Tamei."

Explanation: Above, Rava established this when a spoonful remained. There remained from both of them [together] only a spoonful;

If you think that what comes from the heel no, i.e. it is not Metamei, go here (consider Rekev from one of the Mesim) - perhaps it comes from the heel! I.e. perhaps there is in it (Rekev) from the heel.

It says "perhaps" because there is not Vadai [from the heel]. Perhaps moths ate what came, and the remaining Rekev is from the rest of the body.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara asked] what is the case? I.e. what is the case we ask about?

Surely, if the entire Mes decayed and [perhaps some of the Rekev] comes from the heel, indeed, there is Rekev, for Rav Noson's Beraisa discusses this, when the entire Mes decayed, and also the heel. It has the law of Rekev;

Rather, we ask in any case when one limb decayed, i.e. the leg, and [the decay] came through the heel. (The entire Mes was buried, but only one limb decayed.)

We can say that since there is no life in the flesh of the heel, it decayed quickly. In such a case, we have no tradition for the law of Rekev.

Explanation (Rashi): [Nasha] removes hair. They cooked the body in the hot spring of Teverya first, before anointing with Nasha to remove hair of the head and the rest of the body. Through anointing with Nasha, the roots of the hairs fell out;

Had they anointed beforehand with Nasha, the roots of the hairs that go through the skin would not fall out due to the Nasha, because hair penetrates, and it is connected to the flesh of the head under the skin, like we say in Chulin (119b).

Observation: This Sugya does not hold like we said above "hair that is destined to be cut, what is the law?"

Inference: Hair that is not destined to be cut, it is not Galgalin.

Possibility: Perhaps [our Sugya] holds like Rabah, who said "if they cut his hair, it is Galgalin." If they did not cut it, he was unsure, whether or not it was destined to be cut. We refer to this (if it is Galgalin, what is the case in which there is Rekev?)

Explanation: Below (64b), we say that if one found three Mesim, if there is between them from four Amos up to eight Amos, this is a burial site;

He checks from there and past, for we are concerned lest there is a cemetery there.

If he found two complete [Mesim], and one deficient, this is not a burial site.

Question: This requires investigation why! If the reason for a burial site is due to concern that there was a cemetery there, even if one is deficient, we should be concerned!

Answer: If this is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, this is fine.

Explanation: In a Mishnah in Eduyos (6:3), they argue about a k'Zayis of flesh that separated from Ever Min ha'Chai;

One opinion is Metaher, and one opinion is Metamei. [The latter] learns from flesh that separated from Ever Min ha'Mes.

[The other opinion] asks "you cannot learn from Ever Min ha'Mes, for it has several stringencies - the majority, a quarter, and a full spoonful."

"The majority" refers to the majority of the stature or the majority of the number. A quarter refers to a quarter Kav of bones, which is Metamei b'Ohel. Similarly, a full spoonful of Rekev of a Mes is Metamei b'Ohel, like it teaches in Ohalos.

What is the case in which a living person does not have Rekev? One limb decayed. The corresponding case regarding a Mes, even if one limb decayed, [even] if the limb was cut off the Mes, it has Rekev. (Keren Orah - if it was not cut, this is not a deficient Mes! Rather, it was cut, and even if it was buried by itself, there is Rekev.)

What is the reason? The Mes is deficient! (Rather, this shows that even a deficient Mes has Rekev.)

Explanation (cont.): We reject this. The Mishnah did not say "but a Mes [has Rekev in such a case]!"

Rather, the Chidush is that some Mes has Rekev, i.e. a Mes that not deficient. No living person has Rekev, e.g. in a case that they cut a limb from a living person, and it decayed.