Rabbi Yehuda questioned the law in our Mishna as quoted by Sumchus “on a corpse and on an olive bulk from a dead corpse” – if an olive bulk is enough to make the nazir shave, obviously a whole corpse. Since Rabbi Yehuda was angry at this, Rabbi Yosi tries to explain the Mishna. However, his answer is rejected, but the Gemara quotes Rabbi Yochanan and Rava who each bring different ways to understand this phrase – either it was from a miscarried fetus whose limbs were not yet joined or it was bones from a very small corpse that did not contain the minimum size (1/4 kav) to pass on impurity, but they formed the majority of the limbs in the body or the majority of the structure of the body. Netzel is defined as liquid from a corpse that congealed. Why does it need to congeal? Is the law of netzel (liquid from a dead body carries impurity) also applicable to impurity of dead animals? If one holds that high-level impurity of a neveila (dead animal) is only for food that is fit to be eaten by humans, then netzel is clearly not impure in animals, but if one holds it must be fit to be eaten by a dog, then it may apply to animals as well. They try to answer the question from a braita about liquid cooked by the sun which does not carry impurity, but they conclude that it is so rotten that it is not even fit to be eaten by a dog and therefore can’t be used to answer the question. Rami bar Hama asks a question on a Mishna in Machshirin 5:9 regarding thick liquids that when poured, both parts are considered as one and one part can make the other impure in this way. Rami bar Hama asks whether the rabbis disagree with Beit Shamai, do they hold that one part makes the other impure only if the substance flows backward when the pouring stops or is it when the substance is so thick and sticky that it is viewed as one unit? The Tosefta in Ohalot 4:3 and our Mishna are quoted to answer the question, however, both attempts are rejected. How much is the requisite amount “melo tarvad” (a ladleful) mentioned in the Mishna? Two opinions are brought. A difficulty is raised against one of the opinions from a braita but it is resolved in two possible ways.
Nazir 50
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Nazir 50
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: יֹאמְרוּ מֵאִיר שָׁכַב, יְהוּדָה כָּעַס, יוֹסֵי שָׁתַק — תּוֹרָה מַה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמֵת שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וַעֲדַיִין יֹאמַר: עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנּוּ מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabbi Yosei said: Now they will say: Meir is dead, Yehuda is angry, and Yosei remained silent and did not respond. If so, what will become of the Torah? Rabbi Yosei therefore said: It is not necessary to teach that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse, but only that he must shave even for impurity imparted by a corpse upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh. The Gemara asks: But one could still say: If he must shave for impurity imparted by a limb from a corpse, even if it is less than an olive-bulk, as stated in the mishna, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by all of a corpse, even if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh?
אֶלָּא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.
Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yoḥanan said, with regard to a different issue: It is necessary only for a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Here too, one can say that the mishna’s statement that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse is referring to a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Although it does not impart impurity through one of its limbs, as the limbs lack sinews and bones, this corpse itself does impart impurity.
רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרוֹב בִּנְיָינוֹ וּלְרוֹב מִנְיָינוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן רוֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת.
Rava said a different explanation: This ruling is necessary only for the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a very small corpse, despite the fact that together they do not contain a quarter-kav of bones. Since these bones comprise the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a corpse, they have the status of a whole body. This halakha could not have been derived from the measure of impurity of part of the body, as this corpse is very small.
עַל כְּזַיִת מֵת וְעַל כְּזַיִת נֶצֶל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ נֶצֶל — בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ, וּמוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ.
§ The mishna taught: A nazirite shaves for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of fluid. The Gemara explains: And what is fluid? This is referring to flesh of the corpse that liquefied and subsequently congealed, and liquid [mohal] from the corpse that began to boil and then hardened.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, כִּי קָרַשׁ מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא דְּיָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא קָרַשׁ!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the congealment is a determinative factor in the imparting of impurity? If we say that we do not know that the substance with which the nazirite came into contact is from the corpse, even if it congealed, what of it? Rather, you will say that we know that it came from the corpse. But then the nazirite should be impure even though it has not congealed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בִּסְתָם. אִי קָרַשׁ — מוֹהֵל הוּא, לֹא קָרַשׁ — דִּלְמָא כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ הוּא.
Rabbi Yirmeya said that this is referring to an unspecified substance that is definitely from the corpse but is not necessarily a substance that imparts impurity. One therefore examines the substance: If the substance eventually congeals, it is liquid from the corpse, which imparts impurity; if it does not congeal, perhaps it is his phlegm and his spittle, which do not impart impurity.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יֵשׁ נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ אֵין נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה? מִי אָמְרִינַן גְּמִירִי נֶצֶל דְּאָתֵי מֵאָדָם, אֲבָל דְּאָתֵי מִבְּהֵמָה — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
§ With regard to the impurity of fluids from a corpse, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Is there the category of fluid with regard to animals, or is there no category of fluid with regard to animals? In other words, does fluid from an animal carcass impart impurity like the animal carcass itself or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that it is learned as a tradition that fluid that comes from a person is impure but fluid that comes from an animal is not impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as fluid from a corpse is always considered like the flesh itself?
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב — שַׁפִּיר.
The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity, through contact and carrying, only until the carcass becomes inedible for a stranger, i.e., in order impart impurity it must be fit for human consumption. And the carcass imparts impurity by a light impurity that imparts impurity on food through contact until the carcass become inedible for a dog. According to this opinion, it is well, as the halakha of fluid certainly does not apply to an animal, since meat that has liquefied is no longer fit for human consumption.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְכֶלֶב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
However, according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog, what is there to say? Since fluids from an animal carcass are presumably fit to be eaten by a dog, the above dilemma as to whether it is impure remains pertinent.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִמְחוּהוּ בָּאוּר — טָמֵא, בַּחַמָּה — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַד לְכֶלֶב, אֲפִילּוּ בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי!
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Zavim 5:9): The fat of an animal carcass that someone liquefied in fire is still impure. However, if it melted in the sun, which impairs its taste, it is pure. And if it enters your mind that according to the opinion that a carcass imparts impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog the impurity of fluids does apply to an animal carcass, if so, even fat that dissolved in the sun should also be impure. Even if its taste is spoiled, it remains edible for a dog.
אֵימַת מַמְחֵי לֵיהּ — בָּתַר דְּאַסְרַח בְּחַמָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּאַסְרַח — הָוֵה לֵיהּ עָפָר.
The Gemara answers: When does this fat liquefy? After it has putrefied, which is why it was thrown out, at which point it melted in the sun. However, once it putrefied, it had already become like dust and lost any status of ritual impurity it once had. Once it has melted, it is no longer edible for a dog. Consequently, this source provides no proof.
תְּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּצּוֹק — טָהוֹר.
§ The Gemara discusses a related issue. We learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 5:9): Anything that is poured remains ritually pure. In other words, if one pours liquid from one vessel into another, the stream of liquid is not considered to connect the two vessels. Consequently, if the upper vessel and its contents are pure, they do not become impure even if the lower vessel into which the liquid is poured is impure. The stream of liquid does not link them in this manner.
חוּץ מִדְּבַשׁ הַזִּיפִים וְהַצַּפִּיחִית.
The mishna adds: This is the case for all liquids except for zifim honey, a very thick type of honey, and batter, e.g., flour mixed with honey. Since these substances are highly viscous, they are not considered liquids. Rather, they are a kind of soft solid food, which means that they are a single unit that links the two vessels with regard to impurity.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סוֹלֶדֶת לַאֲחוֹרֶיהָ.
Beit Shammai say: Even the stream of a stew made of crushed and broken beans or of whole beans also connects two items because it returns backward. When one stops pouring this stew, part of the dish reverts to its place of origin, and therefore the stream is considered a single unit.
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: יֵשׁ נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, אוֹ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין. מִי אָמְרִינַן מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בְּהוּ רִירֵי, וְהָנֵי לֵית בְּהוּ רִירֵי. אוֹ דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין הוּא, וְהָכָא הָא סְמִיכִין?
§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of the Rabbis that in general, poured liquid does not serve to connect, is there a stream for food, or is there not a stream for food? If one pours melted food into an impure vessel, does the food which one is pouring become impure? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that zifim honey and batter connect different items because they have a flow that returns backward, and these regular foods do not have a flow that returns backward? Or, perhaps the reason why zifim honey and batter connect is because they are viscous, and here the melted foodstuffs are also viscous.
אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֵלֶב הַמֵּת שֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָמֵא, הָיָה מְפוֹרָד וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ נָמֵי לִיטְהַר!
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Oholot 4:3): If there was fat of a corpse that was whole and contained an olive-bulk, and one melted it, it is ritually impure. If from the outset the fat was separated into pieces smaller than an olive-bulk, which do not impart impurity, and one melted it, so that it combined into an olive-bulk in its melted state, it is pure. And if it enters your mind that there is no stream for food, even if it was whole and one melted it, it should also be pure, as it became liquid and spread throughout the pan. Consequently, each part should be considered separate, which means the food is not the size of an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲנָא וּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא תַּרְגֵּימְנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּמַרְתַּח לֵיהּ, סָלֵיק עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא לְפוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָנָא וְקָרֵשׁ, דְּאִיתֵיהּ כּוּלֵּא גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי.
Rabbi Zeira said: I and Mar, son of Ravina, explained it: With what are we dealing here? With a case where as he was heating it, the column of fire rose from under the pan to the mouth of the vessel, and the fat congealed there, so that it was all present together, i.e., there was no stream at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סוֹלְדִין לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן. מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין. הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם רִירֵי.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna to the question of whether food is considered a stream. Beit Shammai say: Even the stream of a stew made of crushed and broken beans or of whole beans also connects two items because it returns backward. This indicates that the dispute in the mishna is whether or not stew meets the criteria of returning backward, and the Rabbis hold that honey and anything like it, which return backward, are considered a stream. Rav Ashi replied: Are the cases comparable? There, in the case of honey, one might suggest it is a stream because it is viscous. Here, with regard to the stew, the reason Beit Shammai rule stringently is due to the flow, which returns backward. The Rabbis do not agree that this is a factor at all.
וְעַל מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו. תְּנַן: מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב שֶׁאָמְרוּ, יֶשְׁנָן מֵעִיקַּר אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו.
§ The mishna taught: And for impurity imparted by a full ladle of dust. The Gemara inquires: And how much is this measure of a full ladle of dust? Ḥizkiyya said: A full palm of the hand. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: His handfuls, i.e., the amount that can be held in the whole hand, including the fingers. The Gemara cites a relevant source. We learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 2:2): The full ladle of dust that the Sages spoke of includes all that can be contained from the base of the fingers and above; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: His handfuls.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא כְּרַבָּנַן! אָמְרִי: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד וּמְלֹא קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו לְמַעְלָה — חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.
Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But in accordance with whose opinion did Ḥizkiyya state his opinion? His ruling is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with that of the Rabbis. The Rabbis require his handfuls, Rabbi Meir refers only to the amount contained in the fingers themselves, while Ḥizkiyya rules that it is the amount that can rest on the palm of a hand. The Sages say in response that Ḥizkiyya’s amount of a full palm of his hand and Rabbi Meir’s measurement of a full amount of his finger joints from the palm of the hand and above are one and the same measure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַדָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי מִקִּשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּלְמַעְלָה לְרֹאשׁ? דִּלְמָא לְמַטָּה מִדִּידֵיהּ, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the basis of the question directed toward the opinion of Ḥizkiyya. Rav Shimi bar Adda said to Rav Pappa: From where do we know that this amount specified by Rabbi Meir: From his finger joints and above, means toward the ends of the fingers? Perhaps it is referring to below it, toward the arm, in which case it is exactly the same as Ḥizkiyya’s amount: A full palm of the hand. If so, this baraita presents no difficulty to Ḥizkiyya at all. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the question shall stand unresolved.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
New York, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Nazir 50
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: יֹאמְרוּ מֵאִיר שָׁכַב, יְהוּדָה כָּעַס, יוֹסֵי שָׁתַק — תּוֹרָה מַה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמֵת שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וַעֲדַיִין יֹאמַר: עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנּוּ מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabbi Yosei said: Now they will say: Meir is dead, Yehuda is angry, and Yosei remained silent and did not respond. If so, what will become of the Torah? Rabbi Yosei therefore said: It is not necessary to teach that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse, but only that he must shave even for impurity imparted by a corpse upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh. The Gemara asks: But one could still say: If he must shave for impurity imparted by a limb from a corpse, even if it is less than an olive-bulk, as stated in the mishna, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by all of a corpse, even if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh?
אֶלָּא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.
Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yoḥanan said, with regard to a different issue: It is necessary only for a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Here too, one can say that the mishna’s statement that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse is referring to a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Although it does not impart impurity through one of its limbs, as the limbs lack sinews and bones, this corpse itself does impart impurity.
רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרוֹב בִּנְיָינוֹ וּלְרוֹב מִנְיָינוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן רוֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת.
Rava said a different explanation: This ruling is necessary only for the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a very small corpse, despite the fact that together they do not contain a quarter-kav of bones. Since these bones comprise the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a corpse, they have the status of a whole body. This halakha could not have been derived from the measure of impurity of part of the body, as this corpse is very small.
עַל כְּזַיִת מֵת וְעַל כְּזַיִת נֶצֶל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ נֶצֶל — בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ, וּמוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ.
§ The mishna taught: A nazirite shaves for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of fluid. The Gemara explains: And what is fluid? This is referring to flesh of the corpse that liquefied and subsequently congealed, and liquid [mohal] from the corpse that began to boil and then hardened.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, כִּי קָרַשׁ מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא דְּיָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא קָרַשׁ!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the congealment is a determinative factor in the imparting of impurity? If we say that we do not know that the substance with which the nazirite came into contact is from the corpse, even if it congealed, what of it? Rather, you will say that we know that it came from the corpse. But then the nazirite should be impure even though it has not congealed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בִּסְתָם. אִי קָרַשׁ — מוֹהֵל הוּא, לֹא קָרַשׁ — דִּלְמָא כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ הוּא.
Rabbi Yirmeya said that this is referring to an unspecified substance that is definitely from the corpse but is not necessarily a substance that imparts impurity. One therefore examines the substance: If the substance eventually congeals, it is liquid from the corpse, which imparts impurity; if it does not congeal, perhaps it is his phlegm and his spittle, which do not impart impurity.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יֵשׁ נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ אֵין נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה? מִי אָמְרִינַן גְּמִירִי נֶצֶל דְּאָתֵי מֵאָדָם, אֲבָל דְּאָתֵי מִבְּהֵמָה — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
§ With regard to the impurity of fluids from a corpse, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Is there the category of fluid with regard to animals, or is there no category of fluid with regard to animals? In other words, does fluid from an animal carcass impart impurity like the animal carcass itself or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that it is learned as a tradition that fluid that comes from a person is impure but fluid that comes from an animal is not impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as fluid from a corpse is always considered like the flesh itself?
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב — שַׁפִּיר.
The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity, through contact and carrying, only until the carcass becomes inedible for a stranger, i.e., in order impart impurity it must be fit for human consumption. And the carcass imparts impurity by a light impurity that imparts impurity on food through contact until the carcass become inedible for a dog. According to this opinion, it is well, as the halakha of fluid certainly does not apply to an animal, since meat that has liquefied is no longer fit for human consumption.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְכֶלֶב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
However, according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog, what is there to say? Since fluids from an animal carcass are presumably fit to be eaten by a dog, the above dilemma as to whether it is impure remains pertinent.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִמְחוּהוּ בָּאוּר — טָמֵא, בַּחַמָּה — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַד לְכֶלֶב, אֲפִילּוּ בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי!
The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Zavim 5:9): The fat of an animal carcass that someone liquefied in fire is still impure. However, if it melted in the sun, which impairs its taste, it is pure. And if it enters your mind that according to the opinion that a carcass imparts impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog the impurity of fluids does apply to an animal carcass, if so, even fat that dissolved in the sun should also be impure. Even if its taste is spoiled, it remains edible for a dog.
אֵימַת מַמְחֵי לֵיהּ — בָּתַר דְּאַסְרַח בְּחַמָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּאַסְרַח — הָוֵה לֵיהּ עָפָר.
The Gemara answers: When does this fat liquefy? After it has putrefied, which is why it was thrown out, at which point it melted in the sun. However, once it putrefied, it had already become like dust and lost any status of ritual impurity it once had. Once it has melted, it is no longer edible for a dog. Consequently, this source provides no proof.
תְּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּצּוֹק — טָהוֹר.
§ The Gemara discusses a related issue. We learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 5:9): Anything that is poured remains ritually pure. In other words, if one pours liquid from one vessel into another, the stream of liquid is not considered to connect the two vessels. Consequently, if the upper vessel and its contents are pure, they do not become impure even if the lower vessel into which the liquid is poured is impure. The stream of liquid does not link them in this manner.
חוּץ מִדְּבַשׁ הַזִּיפִים וְהַצַּפִּיחִית.
The mishna adds: This is the case for all liquids except for zifim honey, a very thick type of honey, and batter, e.g., flour mixed with honey. Since these substances are highly viscous, they are not considered liquids. Rather, they are a kind of soft solid food, which means that they are a single unit that links the two vessels with regard to impurity.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סוֹלֶדֶת לַאֲחוֹרֶיהָ.
Beit Shammai say: Even the stream of a stew made of crushed and broken beans or of whole beans also connects two items because it returns backward. When one stops pouring this stew, part of the dish reverts to its place of origin, and therefore the stream is considered a single unit.
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: יֵשׁ נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, אוֹ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין. מִי אָמְרִינַן מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בְּהוּ רִירֵי, וְהָנֵי לֵית בְּהוּ רִירֵי. אוֹ דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין הוּא, וְהָכָא הָא סְמִיכִין?
§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of the Rabbis that in general, poured liquid does not serve to connect, is there a stream for food, or is there not a stream for food? If one pours melted food into an impure vessel, does the food which one is pouring become impure? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that zifim honey and batter connect different items because they have a flow that returns backward, and these regular foods do not have a flow that returns backward? Or, perhaps the reason why zifim honey and batter connect is because they are viscous, and here the melted foodstuffs are also viscous.
אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֵלֶב הַמֵּת שֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָמֵא, הָיָה מְפוֹרָד וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ נָמֵי לִיטְהַר!
Rava said: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Oholot 4:3): If there was fat of a corpse that was whole and contained an olive-bulk, and one melted it, it is ritually impure. If from the outset the fat was separated into pieces smaller than an olive-bulk, which do not impart impurity, and one melted it, so that it combined into an olive-bulk in its melted state, it is pure. And if it enters your mind that there is no stream for food, even if it was whole and one melted it, it should also be pure, as it became liquid and spread throughout the pan. Consequently, each part should be considered separate, which means the food is not the size of an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲנָא וּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא תַּרְגֵּימְנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּמַרְתַּח לֵיהּ, סָלֵיק עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא לְפוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָנָא וְקָרֵשׁ, דְּאִיתֵיהּ כּוּלֵּא גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי.
Rabbi Zeira said: I and Mar, son of Ravina, explained it: With what are we dealing here? With a case where as he was heating it, the column of fire rose from under the pan to the mouth of the vessel, and the fat congealed there, so that it was all present together, i.e., there was no stream at all.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סוֹלְדִין לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן. מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין. הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם רִירֵי.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna to the question of whether food is considered a stream. Beit Shammai say: Even the stream of a stew made of crushed and broken beans or of whole beans also connects two items because it returns backward. This indicates that the dispute in the mishna is whether or not stew meets the criteria of returning backward, and the Rabbis hold that honey and anything like it, which return backward, are considered a stream. Rav Ashi replied: Are the cases comparable? There, in the case of honey, one might suggest it is a stream because it is viscous. Here, with regard to the stew, the reason Beit Shammai rule stringently is due to the flow, which returns backward. The Rabbis do not agree that this is a factor at all.
וְעַל מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו. תְּנַן: מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב שֶׁאָמְרוּ, יֶשְׁנָן מֵעִיקַּר אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו.
§ The mishna taught: And for impurity imparted by a full ladle of dust. The Gemara inquires: And how much is this measure of a full ladle of dust? Ḥizkiyya said: A full palm of the hand. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: His handfuls, i.e., the amount that can be held in the whole hand, including the fingers. The Gemara cites a relevant source. We learned in the Tosefta (Oholot 2:2): The full ladle of dust that the Sages spoke of includes all that can be contained from the base of the fingers and above; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: His handfuls.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא כְּרַבָּנַן! אָמְרִי: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד וּמְלֹא קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו לְמַעְלָה — חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.
Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But in accordance with whose opinion did Ḥizkiyya state his opinion? His ruling is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with that of the Rabbis. The Rabbis require his handfuls, Rabbi Meir refers only to the amount contained in the fingers themselves, while Ḥizkiyya rules that it is the amount that can rest on the palm of a hand. The Sages say in response that Ḥizkiyya’s amount of a full palm of his hand and Rabbi Meir’s measurement of a full amount of his finger joints from the palm of the hand and above are one and the same measure.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַדָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי מִקִּשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּלְמַעְלָה לְרֹאשׁ? דִּלְמָא לְמַטָּה מִדִּידֵיהּ, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the basis of the question directed toward the opinion of Ḥizkiyya. Rav Shimi bar Adda said to Rav Pappa: From where do we know that this amount specified by Rabbi Meir: From his finger joints and above, means toward the ends of the fingers? Perhaps it is referring to below it, toward the arm, in which case it is exactly the same as Ḥizkiyya’s amount: A full palm of the hand. If so, this baraita presents no difficulty to Ḥizkiyya at all. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the question shall stand unresolved.
