Nazir 50b (נ:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say:

They did not state only the law concerning zifim honey and tzafihit honey—

but

also the thick mixture [a thick, viscous cooked dish]

of groats [beans that were crushed in a mortar and divided in two],

and

a mixture

of beans [whole beans],

because when

one pours the mixture from one vessel into another, when the stream stops flowing,

it contracts [and shrinks]

and returns

backward.

Rami bar Hama asks

according to the Sages:

Is

there a poured-stream connection with foodstuffs—

for example, if one melted fat and poured it into impure foodstuffs— so that all the fat becomes impure because of its connection, just as there is a poured-stream connection with zifim honey and tzafihit honey?

Or

perhaps

there is no poured-stream connection with foodstuffs,

and there is no connection here?

The uncertainty depends on how one explains the reason of the Sages with regard to honey:

Do we say:

The reason that a poured stream in honey is a connection

is because they contain

[zifim honey and tzafihit honey]

slime,

and they stretch like glue and contract backward?

But these

[the other foodstuffs]

do not contain slime,

and the poured stream is not a connection.

Or perhaps: It is because they are viscous

[that they are thick]

that

the Sages said that a poured stream of zifim honey and tzafihit honey is a connection,

whereas here

[with the other foodstuffs]

they are indeed viscous,

and their poured stream is a connection.

a. An olive-bulk of the flesh of a corpse conveys impurity through contact, carrying, and a tent. If it is divided, one who touches only part of it is pure.

b. A connection made by a person is not a connection [Oholot 3:4]. Any object that was divided from its connection and a person subsequently reconnected it is not considered a connection. Therefore, if an olive-bulk from a corpse was divided and a person subsequently reconnected it, it is not a connection, and one who touches it is not impure.

Rava said: Come and hear:

The fat

from

a complete corpse [a single piece that has not been broken apart]

and one melted it [he melted it over a fire],

is impure

if an olive-bulk remains in it, and one who touches it is impure, as one who touches an olive-bulk of the flesh of a corpse.

If

the fat

was fragmented

and originally did not contain a complete olive-bulk, even though he subsequently

melted it

over a fire and it all became one piece, it is

pure

and does not convey impurity through contact, because “a connection made by a person is not a connection.”

Rabbi Zeira

rejected

this:

I

[and]

Mar, son of Ravina, interpreted

[we explained the beraita]:

What are we dealing with here? With a case where, while he was heating it

[while the fat was being heated],

a column rose to the mouth of the vessel,

an olive-bulk of fat rose all at once toward the vessel by force of the fire,

and congealed

there, and it follows

that it was all together,

so that the entire olive-bulk was in one place and was not divided at all.

Yet when an olive-bulk of fat is placed on the fire, it is impossible that a single drop will not become separated from its place of connection because of the boiling—

And if it enters your mind that there is no poured-stream connection with foodstuffs,

then

even if it was complete and he melted it, it should become pure,

for the drop became separated, and when it returned it would not be considered connected, since there is here a connection made by a person, and such a connection is not a connection.

Rather, certainly infer from this: A poured stream is a connection with foodstuffs. Here too, it is impossible that even during the melting that drop was not connected to the rest of the fat by means of a poured stream.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

and resolve from the Mishna itself that the reason of the Sages is that they contain slime:

For we learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: Also a mixture of groats and beans, because they contract backward.

It follows that the reason of Beit Shammai is the presence of slime. Therefore, it is reasonable that the reason of the first tanna too is the presence of slime, since the first tanna did not state any other reason for his ruling.

The Gemara rejects this:

Is that necessarily so

[and is there proof from here]!? Even though the first tanna did not explain his reason, there is nevertheless no necessity that his reason and the reason of Beit Shammai are the same. Rather, one may say:

There,

in the statement of the first tanna, the reason is

that they are viscous.

Whereas

here,

in the statement of Beit Shammai, the reason is

the presence of slime.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for a full ladleful of corpse dust:

And we explain:

And what is its measure?

Hezekiah said: A palmful,

that is, the palm of the hand from the beginning of the separation of the fingers to the forearm.

Rabbi Yohanan said: A handful.

And we raise an objection from that which

we learned:

The full ladleful of corpse dust that they stated consists of material from the base of the

fingers

[from the place where the fingers separate]

and upward

[toward the outside], that is, its measure is the fullness of the fingers of the hand,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

Its measure is

a handful.

Granted

with regard to

Rabbi Yohanan,

there is no difficulty, since

he stated his opinion in accordance with the Sages,

who said “a handful,” as he did.

But Hezekiah,

who said “a palmful,”

in accordance with whom!?

For his statement conforms

neither to Rabbi Meir nor to the Sages!?

They say,

the students of the academy answered:

“A palmful”

and “

the fullness of the joints of his fingers

and

upward,”

are one measure,

for they hold the same quantity, one as the other.

Rav Shimi bar Adda said to Rav Pappa:

The difficulty does not arise in the first place:

From where is it established that this phrase, “

from the joints of his fingers upward,”

means upward

toward the tips

of his fingers?

Perhaps it means upward toward the body,

so that

the tanna’s measure, “

a palmful,”

is like that stated by Hezekiah.