Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 11, 2015 | 讻状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 50

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬讗诪专讜 诪讗讬专 砖讻讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻注住 讬讜住讬 砖转拽 转讜专讛 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注讚讬讬谉 讬讗诪专 注诇 讗讘专 诪诪谞讜 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉

Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转

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.

注诇 讻讝讬转 诪转 讜注诇 讻讝讬转 谞爪诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 谞爪诇 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖拽专砖 讜诪讜讛诇 砖讛专转讬讞

搂 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽专砖 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽专砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘住转诐 讗讬 拽专砖 诪讜讛诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 拽专砖 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讛讜讗

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讬砖 谞爪诇 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞爪诇 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙诪讬专讬 谞爪诇 讚讗转讬 诪讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讚讗转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

搂 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?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 砖驻讬专

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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讞讜讛讜 讘讗讜专 讟诪讗 讘讞诪讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞诪讛 谞诪讬

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.

讗讬诪转 诪诪讞讬 诇讬讛 讘转专 讚讗住专讜讞 讘讞诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗住专讞 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注驻专

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.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞爪讜拽 讟讛讜专

搂 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.

讞讜抓 诪讚讘砖 讛讝讬驻讬诐 讜讛爪驻讬讞讬转

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讙专讬住讬谉 讜砖诇 驻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 住讜诇讚转 诇讗讞讜专讬讛

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.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 专讬专讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 专讬专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住诪讬讻讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讗 住诪讬讻讬谉

Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞诇讘 讛诪转 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜讛转讬讻讜 讟诪讗 讛讬讛 诪驻讜专讚 讜讛转讬讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诇诐 讜讛转讬讻讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讟讛专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讜诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讚诪专转讞 诇讬讛 住诇讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讚诪谞讗 讜拽专砖 讚讗讬转讬讛 讻讜诇讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讙专讬住讬谉 讜砖诇 驻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 住讜诇讚讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚住诪讬讻讬谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 专讬专讬

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.

讜注诇 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 转谞谉 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖谞谉 诪注讬拽专 讗爪讘注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said: A full palm of the hand. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 讜诪诇讗 拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗

Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But in accordance with whose opinion did 岣zkiyya 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 岣zkiyya rules that it is the amount that can rest on the palm of a hand. The Sages say in response that 岣zkiyya鈥檚 amount of a full palm of his hand and Rabbi Meir鈥檚 measurement of a full amount of his finger joints from the palm of the hand and above are one and the same measure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 诪拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讟讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 转讬拽讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the basis of the question directed toward the opinion of 岣zkiyya. 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 岣zkiyya鈥檚 amount: A full palm of the hand. If so, this baraita presents no difficulty to 岣zkiyya at all. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the question shall stand unresolved.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 50

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬讗诪专讜 诪讗讬专 砖讻讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻注住 讬讜住讬 砖转拽 转讜专讛 诪讛 转讛讗 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜注讚讬讬谉 讬讗诪专 注诇 讗讘专 诪诪谞讜 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉

Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇专讜讘 讘谞讬讬谞讜 讜诇专讜讘 诪谞讬讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转

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.

注诇 讻讝讬转 诪转 讜注诇 讻讝讬转 谞爪诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 谞爪诇 讘砖专 讛诪转 砖拽专砖 讜诪讜讛诇 砖讛专转讬讞

搂 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讻讬 拽专砖 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽专砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘住转诐 讗讬 拽专砖 诪讜讛诇 讛讜讗 诇讗 拽专砖 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讞讜 讜谞讬注讜 讛讜讗

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讬砖 谞爪诇 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞爪诇 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讙诪讬专讬 谞爪诇 讚讗转讬 诪讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讚讗转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

搂 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?

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讙专 讜讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 砖驻讬专

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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 注讚 诇讻诇讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讞讜讛讜 讘讗讜专 讟诪讗 讘讞诪讛 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讚 诇讻诇讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞诪讛 谞诪讬

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.

讗讬诪转 诪诪讞讬 诇讬讛 讘转专 讚讗住专讜讞 讘讞诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗住专讞 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注驻专

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.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞爪讜拽 讟讛讜专

搂 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.

讞讜抓 诪讚讘砖 讛讝讬驻讬诐 讜讛爪驻讬讞讬转

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讙专讬住讬谉 讜砖诇 驻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 住讜诇讚转 诇讗讞讜专讬讛

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.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 专讬专讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讬转 讘讛讜 专讬专讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住诪讬讻讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讛讗 住诪讬讻讬谉

Rami bar 岣ma 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞诇讘 讛诪转 砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 讜讛转讬讻讜 讟诪讗 讛讬讛 诪驻讜专讚 讜讛转讬讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讬谉 谞爪讜拽 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诇诐 讜讛转讬讻讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讟讛专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗谞讗 讜诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讘讛讚讬 讚诪专转讞 诇讬讛 住诇讬拽 注诪讜讚讗 讚谞讜专讗 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讚诪谞讗 讜拽专砖 讚讗讬转讬讛 讻讜诇讗 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讙专讬住讬谉 讜砖诇 驻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 住讜诇讚讬谉 诇讗讞讜专讬讛谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚住诪讬讻讬谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 专讬专讬

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.

讜注诇 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 转谞谉 诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖谞谉 诪注讬拽专 讗爪讘注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said: A full palm of the hand. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 讜诪诇讗 拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 诇诪注诇讛 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗

Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But in accordance with whose opinion did 岣zkiyya 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 岣zkiyya rules that it is the amount that can rest on the palm of a hand. The Sages say in response that 岣zkiyya鈥檚 amount of a full palm of his hand and Rabbi Meir鈥檚 measurement of a full amount of his finger joints from the palm of the hand and above are one and the same measure.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 诪拽砖专讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇专讗砖 讚诇诪讗 诇诪讟讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 驻讬住转 讛讬讚 转讬拽讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the basis of the question directed toward the opinion of 岣zkiyya. 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 岣zkiyya鈥檚 amount: A full palm of the hand. If so, this baraita presents no difficulty to 岣zkiyya at all. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the question shall stand unresolved.

Scroll To Top