Why does R' Yochanan say he has the bone of his tenth son? Isn't the body to be buried intact? Also, wouldn't carrying a piece of a body make one impure?
Eliyahu Shmuel, Guelph, ON Canada
Rashi explains that R. Yochanan is speaking about a tiny bone less than the size of a barley. He obviously says that to answer your Kashyos. We know that a bone of that size is not subject to Tum'ah. By the same token presumably, it does not need to be buried together with him either.
According to the Aruch (see Mesores ha'Shas), the bone in question was a tooth, which, as the Rashbam in Bava Basra explains, is not not subject to Tum'ah once it has been detached from the corpse (and the assumption that we made above concerning burial will apply here too).
Kind regards
Eliezer Chrysler.