נזיר נ

נזיר נ

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: יֹאמְרוּ מֵאִיר שָׁכַב, יְהוּדָה כָּעַס, יוֹסֵי שָׁתַק — תּוֹרָה מַה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמֵת שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וַעֲדַיִין יֹאמַר: עַל אֵבֶר מִמֶּנּוּ מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

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?

אֶלָּא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין. הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.

Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s 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.

רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְרוֹב בִּנְיָינוֹ וּלְרוֹב מִנְיָינוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן רוֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת.

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.

עַל כְּזַיִת מֵת וְעַל כְּזַיִת נֶצֶל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ נֶצֶל — בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת שֶׁקָּרַשׁ, וּמוֹהַל שֶׁהִרְתִּיחַ.

§ 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.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, כִּי קָרַשׁ מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא דְּיָדְעִינַן דְּדִידֵיהּ הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא קָרַשׁ!

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בִּסְתָם. אִי קָרַשׁ — מוֹהֵל הוּא, לֹא קָרַשׁ — דִּלְמָא כִּיחוֹ וְנִיעוֹ הוּא.

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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יֵשׁ נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ אֵין נֶצֶל לִבְהֵמָה? מִי אָמְרִינַן גְּמִירִי נֶצֶל דְּאָתֵי מֵאָדָם, אֲבָל דְּאָתֵי מִבְּהֵמָה — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

§ 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?

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְגֵר, וְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה עַד לְכֶלֶב — שַׁפִּיר.

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.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה עַד לְכֶלֶב, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִמְחוּהוּ בָּאוּר — טָמֵא, בַּחַמָּה — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַד לְכֶלֶב, אֲפִילּוּ בַּחַמָּה נָמֵי!

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.

אֵימַת מַמְחֵי לֵיהּ — בָּתַר דְּאַסְרַח בְּחַמָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּאַסְרַח — הָוֵה לֵיהּ עָפָר.

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.

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּצּוֹק — טָהוֹר.

§ 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.

חוּץ מִדְּבַשׁ הַזִּיפִים וְהַצַּפִּיחִית.

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.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא סוֹלֶדֶת לַאֲחוֹרֶיהָ.

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.

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: יֵשׁ נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, אוֹ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין. מִי אָמְרִינַן מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בְּהוּ רִירֵי, וְהָנֵי לֵית בְּהוּ רִירֵי. אוֹ דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין הוּא, וְהָכָא הָא סְמִיכִין?

§ Rami bar Ḥama 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.

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חֵלֶב הַמֵּת שֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָמֵא, הָיָה מְפוֹרָד וְהִתִּיכוֹ — טָהוֹר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֵין נִצּוֹק לָאוֹכָלִין, שָׁלֵם וְהִתִּיכוֹ נָמֵי לִיטְהַר!

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲנָא וּמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא תַּרְגֵּימְנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּמַרְתַּח לֵיהּ, סָלֵיק עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא לְפוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָנָא וְקָרֵשׁ, דְּאִיתֵיהּ כּוּלֵּא גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל גְּרִיסִין וְשֶׁל פּוֹל — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סוֹלְדִין לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן. מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְמִיכִין. הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם רִירֵי.

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.

וְעַל מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו. תְּנַן: מְלֹא תַּרְווֹד רָקָב שֶׁאָמְרוּ, יֶשְׁנָן מֵעִיקַּר אֶצְבָּעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו.

§ 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? Ḥizkiyya said: A full palm of the hand. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא כְּרַבָּנַן! אָמְרִי: מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד וּמְלֹא קִשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו לְמַעְלָה — חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.

Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But in accordance with whose opinion did Ḥizkiyya 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 Ḥizkiyya rules that it is the amount that can rest on the palm of a hand. The Sages say in response that Ḥizkiyya’s amount of a full palm of his hand and Rabbi Meir’s measurement of a full amount of his finger joints from the palm of the hand and above are one and the same measure.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַדָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי מִקִּשְׁרֵי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו וּלְמַעְלָה לְרֹאשׁ? דִּלְמָא לְמַטָּה מִדִּידֵיהּ, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְלֹא פִּיסַּת הַיָּד? תֵּיקוּ.

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