Nazir 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei said:

The students will say:

the students: “

Meir has gone to sleep

[he has died],

Yehuda is angry,

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

And

Rabbi Yosei said

to explain the Mishna as Rabbi Meir had taught it:

It was necessary

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

but for a corpse

that is complete

but does not have an olive-bulk of flesh on it,

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

And Rabbi Yehuda will still say

[he will object]:

For a limb from it he shaves,

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

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

Rather,

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

as

there,

as Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain the Mishna in Oholot [2:1], where we learned: “And these impart impurity in a tent: a corpse and an olive-bulk from a corpse.” And we asked: Why do I need it to state “a corpse,” since it states “an olive-bulk from a 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 fetus

tselogo

that

has still

not had its limbs joined by sinews,

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

Here too,

in our Mishna,

with regard to a fetus whose limbs have not been joined by sinews,

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

Rava said

he explained:

It was necessary—

the law that one shaves 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

if they contain not even

even

a quarter

of a kav

of bones.

That is to say: Although broken bones that come from the majority of a corpse’s number or the majority of its structure impart impurity only when they amount to a quarter-kav of bones, and with regard to shaving the measure is half a kav, nevertheless, when the bones constituting the majority of a corpse’s structure or number 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]. This is the “corpse” stated in our Mishna with regard to shaving.

And one should not object: Let him derive this from the law of a limb. There is no complete limb here, since there are only bones, and that is insufficient to constitute 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 a corpse that

first decomposed and liquefied and then

hardened, and

likewise

the fluid

of a corpse [a substance resembling water that emerges from the flesh of a corpse]

that was boiled,

meaning that it was heated and produced bubbles; the beraita proceeds to explain this.

And we raise an objection: It is obvious that hardening does not add anything with regard to impurity or shaving. Rather, decomposed and liquefied flesh of a corpse is what is called “netzel.” If so,

what are the circumstances

of netzel that requires hardening?!

If

it is

because

the beraita is dealing with a case in which

we do not know that

the liquefied substance

is its own,

that is, we do not know whether that liquefied substance is indeed the flesh of the corpse that liquefied and therefore imparts impurity as “netzel,” or whether it is merely fluids issuing from the mouth and nose, which are pure—

if so,

what does it accomplish if it hardens

[what difference does it make that it hardened]? The doubt still remains, so how can the nazirite shave because of it when there is a doubt?!

Rather, if we know that it is its own

[it is known to us that it is liquefied flesh of the corpse], then

even though it did not harden

the nazirite should shave because of it, since hardening does not add anything with regard to impurity or shaving. And likewise, the same difficulty applies to fluid that was boiled: What does boiling add in this regard?!

He said

he explained,

Rabbi Yirmeya:

The beraita is in fact dealing

with an unspecified case,

that is, a liquefied substance was found, and we do not know its nature—whether it is liquefied flesh of the corpse or its phlegm and nasal discharge. And as for what is difficult for you: What does it accomplish if it hardens?

If it hardens,

that liquefied substance is certainly

fluid

itself,

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

if it does not harden, perhaps it is the phlegm and nasal discharge

[fluids issuing from the mouth and nose]

itself.

Likewise, if the fluid is boiled and produces bubbles, it is certainly fluid that emerged from the corpse, and not its phlegm and nasal discharge, which do not produce bubbles when boiled.

Abaye asked Rava

about the law of “the impurity of animal carcasses”:

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

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

Do we say: When the halakha was learned

[the halakha was accepted only] concerning

netzel

[decomposed and liquefied flesh of a corpse]

that comes

[that derives]

from a human being

and concerns corpse impurity,

but

netzel

that comes

[that derives]

from an animal,

to impart the impurity of carcasses,

was not

the halakha accepted that it imparts impurity?

Or perhaps: There is no difference,

and there is netzel with regard to the impurity of a carcass just as there is with regard to corpse impurity.

And we explain:

This works according to the one who says:

The severe impurity—

the impurity of a carcass—imparts impurity

until the stage of a ger

only, that is, until it becomes unfit for consumption by a ger, but once it becomes unfit for human consumption, it no longer imparts impurity—

And

if

the lesser impurity

[the impurity of foods] is imparted by the carcass

until it is unfit for a dog,

that is, until it becomes unfit for canine consumption, even though it has become unfit for human consumption.

Well and good,

that is, there is no uncertainty as to whether it imparts impurity when it is netzel, for even if you say that a new impurity of netzel exists for an animal carcass as well, nevertheless, the flesh has decomposed and is no longer fit for human consumption, and therefore does not impart impurity.

Rather,

the doubt applies

according to the one who says that

even

the severe impurity

[the impurity of carcasses] is imparted by a carcass

until

[as long as] it remains fit

for a dog,

even if it is not fit for human consumption—

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 where the doubt applies, because once it has decomposed and liquefied it can impart impurity only as “netzel,” and we must determine whether an animal has netzel.

Come and hear

that there is no netzel for a carcass, from what was taught in a beraita:

The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart impurity through contact, but imparts impurity only in the esophagus, when swallowed.

The fat of the carcass of a kosher bird that

was liquefied by fire

[by means of fire] is

impure,

because it is fit for human consumption.

But if the fat was liquefied

in the sun,

it is

pure,

because when it is liquefied in the sun it becomes malodorous from the sun’s heat and is unfit for human consumption.

And if it could enter your mind that an animal has netzel,

and likewise the carcass of a kosher bird, then

even when liquefied in the sun as well

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

And we answer: When

does it liquefy

[when does the fat liquefy after it was placed in the sun]? It is

after it has spoiled in the sun,

[after it has become malodorous from the sun], and

since it has spoiled,

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

it has become

like

ordinary

soil.

Since the beraita concerning “liquefied by fire” was brought, the Gemara here introduces another issue that can be proved from that beraita.

We learned

in tractate Makhshirin [5:9]:

All cascading 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 that renders the pure liquids impure.

Except for zifim honey

[a type of thick honey]

and tzafihit

[which is also thick honey], because, being thick, it is treated as food, as though the lower and upper portions were mixed together, and the pure portion becomes impure.