If his leg was cut off from the knee and above, he does not have Rekev; from the knee and below, he has Rekev.

If [the cut off leg] was buried with him - from the knee and below, it is Gilgalin for him; from the knee and above, it is not Gilgalin for him.

Question (Talmidim, in front of R. Shmuel bar Avduma): If [the leg was cut off and] tied from the knee and below [what is the law]?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Avduma): [If you consider this Gilgalin,] even if it was not cut off, I should view it as if it was cut off (for when the Mes decays, it will not be connected), and it should be Gilgalin for him! [Rather,] since it is connected to him, it is all like one body (it is not Gilgalin).

Question: If [a body] was lacking (something was removed after death), does it have Rekev?

Answer: We learn from the following (Beraisa). If [a body] was lacking, it does not have Rekev, nor Tefisas Kever (if it is found on the road, to take the earth surrounding it to be buried with it), nor Shechunas Kevaros (if three were found close to each other, it is considered a burial site, and we do not move them).

Question (R. Yochanan): How much must [a live person] be lacking that he will not have Rekev [after death]?

Answer #1: We learn from a Mishnah - [a skull does not have Tum'as Ohel if it is missing] enough that if it is taken from a living person, he will die. And so here [if he is lacking something that makes him Tereifah, he will not have Rekev].

Objection: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If the foodpipe was punctured, he is not Chaser, and he does not live! (Does he not have Rekev due to this?)

Answer #2: You learn only from the following (Beraisa). If his leg was cut off from the knee and below, he has Rekev; from the knee and above, he does not have Rekev. (We say that there is no Rekev only if there is Chisaron, and it makes him a Tereifah. We explained this partially based on PANIM ME'IROS);

If it was buried with him - from the knee and below, it is Gilgalin for him; from the knee and above, it is not Gilgalin for him.

Question: Do Nefalim have Rekev?

Clarification: The one who says that a Revi'is of their blood is Metamei, [surely] they have Rekev. The one who says that a Revi'is of their blood is not Metamei, [perhaps] they do not have Rekev?

Answer: We learn from the following (Beraisa). Earth of mounds - why is it Tamei? It is because women bury their Nefalim there. (Since it says earth of mounds, we are not concerned for limbs or flesh, only for Rekev.)

Rebuttal (R. Yudan, the father of R. Masniyah): This is unreasonable! [A Beraisa teaches that it is due to Nefalim, and also] because lepers bury there their limbs [that fell off]. Can you say that [it is Tamei due to limbs] due to Rekev?! (Rekev is only from a full Mes!)

Rather, [they are Tamei] due to [concern for] touching [a bone] the size of a barley seed [from a leper's limb. Even though it looks like earth, perhaps it has such a small bone, and it is not noticed. This is like R. Nechuniya (Eduyos 6:3), who is Metamei a bone from Ever Min ha'Chai. Perhaps this is the reason also for Nefalim, and there is no Rekev of Nefalim!]

Question (Beraisa): If one took [from a mound] earth, and put next to it [other earth], it is Tahor. (Why is the Mishnah Metamei 'earth of mounds', i.e. even if it was taken elsewhere?)

Answer: We answer like the following Beraisa teaches. If they uprooted it from its place, it is Tamei. R. Shimon ben Gamliel is Metaher. (The Beraisa that is Metamei is like the first Tana. This latter Beraisa is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. We explained this like KEHILAS YAKOV Nazir 17/18.)

(R. Shimon ben Elazar): [Our Mishnah says that he shaves for] a spine and (or) skull. It is like R. Shimon;

(Beraisa): A spine or skull, even if they are crushed, even if they are disconnected, they are Metamei a person through Ohel, for the grave joins them.

Note: We must say that it was known that this is like R. Shimon. Perhaps the text should say 'R. Shimon says...' The Yerushalmi often writes 'Shizrah' in place of 'Shidrah'.

Our Mishnah [says that he shaves for half a Kav of bones, or half a Log of blood. It] is like R. Elazar;

(Beraisa - R. Elazar): Initially, Batei Din differed. Some said a Revi'is (quarter Log) of blood or a Rova (quarter Kav) of bones, and some said half a Kav of bones, or half a Log of blood. A later Beis Din said, a Revi'is of blood or a Rova of bones regarding Terumah and Kodshim, and half a Kav of bones, or half a Log of blood for a Nazir (to bring Korban Tum'ah) and one who brings Korban Pesach.

Note: It seems that the later Beis Din was unsure. They are stringent to use the bigger Shi'ur for Nazir, lest he bring invalid Korbanos, and for Pesach, lest he refrain from offering it (for which the Onesh is Kares), and the smaller Shi'ur for Terumah and Kodshim, lest one eat them b'Tum'ah. This is like the Bavli's text.

(R. Yakov bar Idi citing R. Shimon): [This was not the decision of a later Beis Din. Rather,] it was [a tradition from Sinai] said from Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi. (Perhaps R. Yakov bar Idi said so, for the distinction is not logical. Also for Nazir and Pesach, if we consider him Tahor and he is really Tamei, his Korbanos are invalid! And it connotes that he is totally Tamei for Terumah and Kodshim, to burn them due to a Revi'is or Rova, and to lash him. If it is a Safek, we should be Toleh (not eat them, nor burn them), and not lash him! - PF)