If this is taken literally, is this at odds with tradition to make sure every last remnant of a body is buried?
Yitzchok Goodman, Cedarhurst, USA
You are asking a good question.
According to the Aruch (cited in the Masores ha'Shas), the bone that Rebbi Yochanan carried with him was a tooth, which does not require burial, since it was not born together with the person. This is clear from the fact that a tooth of a Mes is not Metamei (even if it has a Shi'ur Tum'ah); it is not considered an intrinsic part of a person.
According to those in whose opinion it was not his son's bone at all that he carried around with him, but a bone from the Se'udas Havra'ah (the first meal after the burial), your question certainly falls away.
Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
See Ramban to Bereishis 23:8 (regarding the burial of Sarah) and Gemara Bava Metzia 84b (regarding the interment of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) that imply if proper respect is given to the remains, and they is not left on the field but put into a case or coffin, then it is not required to bury the dead.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld