Nazir 50a — the Talmud in English

”!?” Rabbi Yosei said:

Let the students say:

the students: “

Meir lies [dead],

[umer],

Yehuda became angry,

Yosei remained silent—what will become of Torah”!?

And

Rabbi Yosei said

to explain the Mishna as Rabbi Meir used to teach it:

It was necessary

for our Mishna to teach us that the nazirite shaves for impurity from “a complete corpse”,

but for a corpse

complete

upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh,

which does not impart impurity on account of an olive-bulk from the dead, but on account of “a complete corpse”.

And still Rabbi Yehuda will say [will raise an objection]:

[vozrazit] Rabbi Yehuda:

For a limb from him he shaves,

as explained in our Mishna, that he shaves for a limb from the dead even though there is not an olive-bulk of flesh upon it;

for all of him, is it not all the more so!?

Rather,

the tanna needed to teach us that the nazirite shaves for “impurity from a complete corpse”,

as

there,

as Rabbi Yohanan said

to resolve the Mishna in Oholot [2:1], where we learned: “And these impart impurity in a tent: the corpse and an olive-bulk from the corpse.” And we raised against it: Why do I need it to teach “the corpse,” since it teaches “an olive-bulk from the corpse”?

It was necessary

for the Mishna to innovate the impurity of a complete corpse, which imparts impurity in a tent,

but for a complete stillborn,

complete

that

still

its limbs have not become joined by sinews,

and since it has no sinews, it does not impart impurity under the category of a limb, for a limb consists only of flesh, sinews, and bones; rather, it imparts impurity in a tent only on account of “a complete corpse”.

Here

in our Mishna

also, for a stillborn whose limbs have not become joined by sinews,

we require the law of “impurity from a complete corpse,” for which the nazirite shaves.

Rava said

he answered:

It was necessary—

the law of shaving for impurity from a complete corpse—

only for

complete bones constituting

the majority of its structure and for

complete bones constituting

the majority of its number

of a corpse, even

though they do not contain

even

a quarter

of a kav

of bones.

That is: Although in broken bones that come from the majority of the number and the majority of the structure of a corpse, there is impurity only in a quarter-kav of bones, and regarding shaving, in half a kav, nevertheless, when the bones of the majority of the structure and the majority of the number of a corpse are complete, no measure is required at all, and they impart impurity even in a tent, as explained in the Mishna in Oholot [2:1]. And this is “for the corpse” that we learned in our Mishna regarding shaving.

And it should not be difficult: Let him derive it from a limb, for there is no complete limb here, since there are only bones, and this is insufficient for it to be a limb.

We learned in the Mishna: For these impurities the nazirite shaves, and so on, and

for an olive-bulk of a corpse and for an olive-bulk of netzel:

The Sages taught: What is netzel?

It is

the flesh of the corpse that

first decayed and liquefied, and afterward

hardened, and

likewise

the fluid

of the corpse [like water that emerges from the flesh of the corpse]

that was boiled,

was heated and raised bubbles; and he proceeds to explain it.

And we object: It is obvious that the hardening does not add anything regarding impurity or shaving; rather, the flesh of the corpse that decayed and liquefied is what is called “netzel.” If so,

what are the circumstances

of netzel that requires hardening!?

If

because

the

beraita is dealing with a case in which

we do not know that

that liquefied substance

is his, that is, we do not know whether that liquefied substance is indeed the flesh of the corpse that liquefied and imparts impurity on account of netzel, or perhaps they are merely fluids issuing from the mouth and nose, which are pure—

if so,

then

what does it become when it hardens [what difference does it make that it hardened]? The uncertainty still remains as it was, and how can he shave because of a doubt!?

Rather, we know that it is his [it is known to us that it is liquefied flesh of the corpse]; if so,

even though it did not harden,

the nazirite should shave for it, since hardening does not add anything regarding impurity or shaving! And likewise, regarding fluid that was boiled, what does the boiling add in this matter!?

He said

he explained,

Rabbi Yirmeya:

The beraita is in fact dealing

with an unspecified case, that is, an unspecified liquefied substance was found, and we do not know its nature, whether it is liquefied flesh of the corpse or its mucus and discharge. And as for what is difficult for you: What does it become when it hardens?

If it hardens,

that liquefied substance is certainly

fluid

it is, that is, it is certainly liquefied flesh of the corpse, for the mucus and discharge of a corpse do not come to harden;

if it does not harden, perhaps it is the mucus and discharge [fluids issuing from the mouth and nose]

zhidkostyu

it is.

that is, it is certainly liquefied flesh of the corpse, since a corpse’s phlegm and nasal discharge do not harden;

[zhidkosti, vyhodyashchie iz rta i nosa]

[fluids issuing from the mouth and nose]

yavlyaetsya.

And likewise, if they boiled the fluid and it raised bubbles, it is certainly fluid issuing from the corpse, and not its mucus and discharge, which do not raise bubbles when boiled.

Additional explanation concerning netzel: a. “Netzel” is called flesh of the corpse that decayed and liquefied of itself, or fluid issuing from the corpse; and apparently, in this, it need not have decayed, but every fluid issuing from the corpse bears the name “netzel.” b. The definition of the impurity of netzel: It is implied by Maimonides [Impurity of a Corpse 4:3], and they wrote so in the name of Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik here, that the impurity of netzel is not like the impurity of other flesh of the corpse that imparts impurity. Rather, there is impurity of “flesh” and there is impurity of “netzel.” This is what Maimonides wrote there [with its source in the Tosefta]: “An olive-bulk of flesh from two corpses and an olive-bulk of netzel from two corpses, and so on, these combine with one another; and likewise half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of netzel combine with one another, while all the other impurities of the corpse do not combine with one another, because their measures are not equal.” It is implied that there are two kinds of impurity in a corpse, but they combine with one another because their measures are equal; and this is likewise proven from the sugya according to Tosafot’s interpretation, as will be explained in note 16 below. However, the wording of Tosafot, s.v. “Rather”: “Or perhaps we have not learned that netzel of an animal is considered as flesh,” implies that the halakha merely states that netzel too is included in flesh and that it is all one law; this requires study; and the Gemara’s sugya later is necessarily explained according to Maimonides’ words, as will be explained in note 16. c. The commentator explained the word “netzel” as deriving from the language of separation, as Jacob said to Rachel and Leah [Genesis 31]: “ And God separated your father’s livestock and gave it to me”; but this requires some examination, for fluid issuing from the corpse is indeed a separation, whereas liquefied flesh of the corpse is not a separation. Abaye asked Rabbah

concerning the law of “impurity of carcasses”: Is

there netzel for an animal, or is there no netzel for an animal?

That is: Does an olive-bulk of a carcass that decayed and liquefied impart the impurity of carcasses through contact and carrying, like the flesh of the carcass, just as the netzel of a corpse imparts corpse impurity like its flesh, or not?

Do we say: When they learned [the halakha was received only] about

[poluchena traditsiya tolko] o

the netzel [flesh of the corpse that decayed and liquefied]

[decomposed and liquefied flesh of a corpse]

that comes [that comes]

[proiskhodyashchem]

from a human being

and regarding corpse impurity,

but

netzel

that comes [that comes]

[proiskhodyashchiy]

from an animal

to impart the impurity of carcasses,

not

was a halakha received that it imparts impurity?

Or perhaps: It is no different, and there is netzel for the impurity of a carcass just as for corpse impurity.

And we explain:

This works according to the one who says:

severe impurity—

the impurity of a carcass imparts impurity

only until a stranger

[would eat it], that is, until it becomes unfit for a human being to eat,

but once it becomes unfit for a stranger to eat [that is, for a human being to eat], it no longer imparts impurity—

And

if

lesser impurity

impurity of foods] the carcass imparts

until a dog

that is, until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat, even though it has become unfit for a human being to eat.

It is well,

that is, there is no uncertainty whether it imparts impurity when it is netzel, for even if you say that impurity of netzel was instituted also for a carcass, nevertheless, the flesh decayed and it is no longer fit for human consumption, and it does not impart impurity.

Rather,

the uncertainty is

according to the one who says:

Even

severe impurity [impurity of carcasses]

the carcass imparts

until [as long as] it is fit

for a dog,

even though it is not fit for a human being—

for according to his view, one can find flesh of a carcass that decayed and was liquefied while it is still fit for a dog, and in such a case

for according to his view, it is possible to find flesh of an animal carcass that has decomposed and liquefied but is still fit for a dog; in such a case,

what can be said

that is, this is the matter of the uncertainty, because once it decayed and liquefied it can be made impure only on account of “netzel,” and it is uncertain whether there is netzel for an animal.

Come and hear

that there is no impurity of netzel for a carcass, from that which was taught:

The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart impurity through contact, and it imparts impurity only in the throat.

The fat of the carcass of a kosher bird that

they liquefied with fire [with fire] is

[na ogne], yavlyaetsya

impure,

since it is fit for human consumption.

But if the fat was liquefied

in the sun, it is

it is

pure,

because when it is liquefied in the sun, it becomes foul from the heat of the sun and is not fit for human consumption.

And if it should enter your mind that there is netzel for an animal

and likewise for the carcass of a kosher bird, then

even in the sun also

it should impart impurity, even though it has become unfit for human consumption!?

And we answer: When did it liquefy?

When was it liquefied [when did the fat liquefy when it was placed in the sun]? It was

after it had become foul in the sun [after it became foul from the sun], and

posle togo, kak on zadvonel na solntse,

since it became foul,

it is no longer fit even for a dog, and it does not bear the name “netzel”; rather,

on bolshe ne goden dazhe dlya sobaki, i nazvanie «natsel» k nemu ne otnositsya;

it is

like

ordinary dust

.

Since the beraita of “they liquefied it with fire” was brought, the Gemara brings here another discussion that can be proven from that same beraita.

We learned

in tractate Makhshirin [5:9]:

All flowing liquids

are

pure,

that is, when one pours pure liquids into impure liquids, the stream connecting the pure and impure liquids does not constitute a connection to render the pure liquids impure.

Except for the honey of Ziphim [a type of thick honey]

[vida gustogo meda]

and tzafikhit [it too is thick honey],

because since it is thick, it is treated like food, as though the lower and upper portions were mixed together with one another, and the pure substance becomes impure.