Nazir 50b — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say:

They said not only the zifim honey and the tzafihit honey—

but

also the thick porridge [a thick and dense cooked dish]

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

and

porridge

of beans [whole beans],

because

when one pours the porridge from one vessel into another, when the stream stops,

it contracts [shrinks]

and returns

backward.

Rami bar Hama inquired

according to the Sages:

Is

there a poured-stream connection with foods,

such as when one melted fat and poured it into impure foods, and all the fat became 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 foods,

and there is no connection here?

The doubt depends on how to explain the reason of the Sages concerning honey:

Do we say:

The fact that a poured stream in honey is a connection is

because there are in them

[in the zifim honey and the tzafihit honey]

secretions,

and they are drawn like glue and contract backward?

And these [the other foods] indeed

indeed

do not have secretions,

and the poured stream is not a connection.

Or perhaps: It is because they are dense [thick]

[that they are thick]

that

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

and here [the other foods]

[with the other foodstuffs]

they are indeed dense,

and their poured stream is a connection.

a. An olive-bulk of the flesh of a corpse renders impure through contact, carrying, and tent; and if it is divided, one who touches part of it is pure.

b. A human connection is not a connection [Oholot 3:4]: Anything that was divided from its connection, and a person then reconnected it, is not considered a connection. Therefore, an olive-bulk from a corpse that was divided, and a person then reconnected it, is not a connection, and one who touches it is not impure.

Rava said: Come and hear:

The fat

from

a corpse that is whole [one piece that is not crumbly]

and he melted it [he melted it by fire],

is impure

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

If

the

fat was crumbly

and from the outset there was not a whole olive-bulk in it, even though it subsequently

melted it

by fire and it all became one piece, it is

pure

and does not render impure through contact, because “a human connection is not a connection.”

He said

He rejected

Rabbi Zeira:

I

[I]

and Mar, son of Ravina, interpreted it [we explained the beraita]:

[we explained the beraita]:

What are we dealing with here: For example, while he was boiling it [at the time of boiling the fat],

[while the fat was being heated],

a column rose to the mouth of the vessel,

a single olive-bulk of fat rose alongside the vessel by force of the fire,

and congealed

there, and it follows

that it was all together

a. “For if it had not congealed at the mouth of the vessel, but had returned and fallen to its place, it would not fall together, but by way of a poured stream [that is, little by little, and not an olive-bulk at once], for the force of the fire does not assist it to fall [at once] as it raises it; and when it rises, it rises at once, and when it falls, it falls by way of a poured stream,” Tosafot. b. And see the Meiri, who explained that the Gemara answered that it is not speaking of a case in which he poured the fat into another vessel, but that at the time of boiling he inclined the pan to one side, and the entire olive-bulk gathered in the corner of the vessel and congealed there. c. According to what is explained in the sugya, it follows that if we adopt that a poured stream is indeed not a connection with foods, then fat that he melted by fire without a column rising to the mouth of the vessel is not a connection and does not render impure. And see the Meiri, who wrote: “In any event, we do not need this, for anything that is entirely impure is not separated by means of a poured stream, since a poured stream does not create a connection to introduce new impurity into what is pure; but in any event, when it is entirely impure, the poured stream neither connects nor separates.”

But when an olive-bulk of fat is placed on the fire, it is impossible that one drop will not separate from the place of its connection because of the boiling—

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

then

the whole one that he melted should also become pure,

for the drop separated, and when it returned it was not considered connected, because there are human connections here and they are not connections.

Rather, certainly learn from this: A poured stream is a connection with foods, and here too it is impossible that that drop, even at the time of melting, would not be connected to the rest of the fat by means of a poured stream.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear

to resolve from the Mishna itself that the reason of the Sages is because there are secretions in them:

For we learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: Also the porridge of grits and of beans, because they contract backward,

so the reason of Beit Shammai is because of secretion. If so, it is reasonable that the reason of the first tanna as well is because of secretion, since the first tanna did not explain another reason for his words.

The Gemara rejects:

Is that necessarily so [is there proof from here]!?

For even though the first tanna did not explain his reason, nevertheless there is no necessity that his reason and the reason of Beit Shammai are equal; rather, we can say:

There, in the words of the first tanna,

the reason is

because they are dense.

Whereas

here, in the words of Beit Shammai,

the reason is

because of secretion.

We learned in the Mishna:

And for a full ladle of dust:

And we explain:

And what is its measure?

Hezekiah said: The fullness of the palm

that is, the palm of the hand from the beginning of the spreading of the fingers until the forearm.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The fullness of his handfuls.

And we raise an objection from that which

we learned:

The full ladle of dust that they said has, from the roots of the

fingers [from the place where the fingers spread]

[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 words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

Its measure is

the fullness of his handfuls.

Granted,

concerning

Rabbi Yohanan

there is no difficulty, since

he spoke in accordance with the Sages,

who said “the fullness of his handfuls,” as he did.

But Hezekiah,

who said “the fullness of the palm of the hand,”

in accordance with whom!?

For his words are

neither in accordance with Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with the Sages!?

They say,

the members of the academy, to answer: “

The fullness of the palm of the hand”

and “

the fullness of the joints of his fingers

and

upward,”

are one measure,

it is the same measure, for this holds as much as that.

Rav Shimi bar Adda said to Rav Pappa:

The difficulty does not exist from the outset:

From where is it known that this “

from the joints of his fingers and upward”

means upward

toward the tips

of his fingers?

Perhaps upward toward the body,

so that

the measure of the tanna—“

the fullness of the palm of the hand”—is

a. So it appears that the Rosh reads this, and according to its simple meaning our reading, “ perhaps downward on his side,” is not understandable, since the tanna calls it upward, and how does the Gemara call it downward? The method of Tosafot in all this requires study: Above they explained, “from the roots of the fingers and upward,” until the tips of the fingers, and simply this means from the place where the fingers spread until the tips of the fingers toward the outside. Here they wrote, “From where is it known that this ‘from the joints of his fingers and upward’ means toward the tips of his fingers,” from which you raise the objection, perhaps downward, for he calls the root of the fingers the place where they are attached to the hand, and from their wording it appears that according to Rav Shimi the meaning of “the roots of the fingers” changes from what the questioner had thought. The questioner thought that “the roots of the fingers” means the ends of the fingers toward the outside, and “upward” until the place where the fingers spread [and this is what they call above “the tips of the fingers”]; whereas Rav Shimi explains “the roots of the fingers” as the place where the fingers spread, and upward until the place where the hand is joined to the forearm ; and it further appears from their words that they interpret “downward,” stated in the Gemara, not as indicating direction, but as the location of the roots of the fingers, which is not above but below. And they added: And “upward,” which he says, means toward the body until the joint of the forearm, and this implies that this is according to Rav Shimi, whereas according to the questioner “upward” is interpreted toward the outside. This contradicts what is precise from their earlier words, because if according to the questioner “the roots of the fingers” means the ends of the fingers, then according to his words as well “upward” is interpreted toward the body; and if we were to delete from their words the words “which he says, means” it would be satisfactory. The wording “downward” is also not understood, for the direction toward the body is called “upward” in the language of the Gemara, whereas according to what they explained, “downward” means toward the body; and this requires study.