POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Nazir 50
1) FOR WHICH TUM'OS DOES A NAZIR SHAVE?
(a) R. Yosi: R. Meir is dead, R. Yehudah is angry - if I am
silent, what will be of the Torah!
2) IS A POURED LIQUID CONSIDERED CONNECTED?
1. R. Yosi: A (full) corpse must be taught for the case
when it lacks an olive's worth of flesh.
(b) (Mishnah): For an olive's worth of Neztel ...
2. Objection: Still, why must it be taught - if he
shaves for 1 limb, all the more so for the full
3. Answer #1: Just as R. Yochanan explained the
redundancy in a similar Mishnah - a (full) corpse
must be taught for a stillborn baby whose limbs are
not tied with sinews (therefore, 1 of his limbs is
4. Answer #2 (Rava): It must be taught for bones
comprising the majority of the bones or stature,
even though the bones are not the volume of a
quarter of a Kav.
(c) Question: What is Netzel? (According to Tosfos' text,
this is a Beraisa.)
(d) Answer: Flesh of a corpse that (liquefied and) hardened,
or fluid (that exuded from the corpse) and boiled.
(e) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If we don't know whether it came from
the corpse - even if it hardened, why does he shave
(f) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): The case is, we have no prior
knowledge. If it hardens, it is definitely fluid of the
corpse; if it does not harden, perhaps (apparently,
Tosfos' text does not say 'perhaps') it is phlegm or
2. Suggestion: Rather, we know that it came from the
corpse - if so, even if it didn't harden, he must
(g) Question (Abaye): Does Netzel apply to animals?
1. Was the tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai said
only by a human corpse?
(h) Answer (Beraisa): If one melted (the Nevelah of a Tahor
bird - Tosfos; the Chelev of a Nevelah - Rashi) over a
fire, it is Tamei; in the sun, it is Tahor.
2. Or, is there no distinction?
i. (Amora'im argue regarding a Nevelah (an animal
that died without slaughter). One opinion says,
a Nevelah has severe Tum'ah (can impart Tum'ah
even to people and vessels) the whole time it
is fit for human consumption; it has lighter
Tum'ah (as other foods) the whole time it is
fit for a dog to eat. The other opinion says
that it has severe Tum'ah the whole time it is
fit for a dog).
3. There is no question according to the former opinion
(since Netzel is never fit for people, it never has
4. What is the law according to the latter opinion?
1. If it has severe Tum'ah the whole time it is fit for
a dog - even in the sun, it should be Tamei!
(i) Rejection: No - it is Tahor because it becomes spoiled
and unfit for a dog before it melts in the sun.
(a) (Mishnah): When pouring a Tahor liquid into Tamei food,
the top liquid remains Tahor, except a very thick type of
honey, or honey with beeswax;
(b) Beis Shamai say, even porridge of ground or whole beans,
because it recoils when one ceases pouring.
3) THE QUANTITY OF REKEV FOR TUM'AH
(c) Question (Rami bar Chama): Is a poured (solid) food
1. Are the liquids in the Mishnah considered connected
because drops recoil, and this does not happen by
(d) Answer #1 (Rava - Beraisa): An olive's worth of Chelev of
a corpse (the minimal amount to impart Tum'ah) was
melted. If it started as 1 chunk, it is Tamei; if it
started as disconnected pieces, it is Tahor.
2. Or, the law of the Mishnah is because those liquids
are thick, and solids are also thick?
1. (Surely, during the melting, part of the chunk
poured down.) If a poured food is not considered
connected - even if it started as a chunk, it would
not be Tamei! (If it was ever considered
disconnected, human actions cannot cause it to be
(e) Rejection (R. Zeira): No, the case is, by cooking it, it
rose to the top of the vessel and hardened there (it was
always connected and never poured).
(f) Answer #2 (Ravina - Mishnah): Beis Shamai say, even
porridge of ground or whole beans, because it recoils
when one ceases pouring. (We are thinking, the 1st Tana
agrees that recoiling makes the liquids connected, but
say that porridge does not recoil enough.)
(g) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No - the 1st Tana says they are
connected because they are thick.
(a) (Mishnah): A spoon's worth of Rekev (corroded matter of a
(b) Question: How much is a spoon's worth?
(c) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): A palm full.
(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): 2 handfuls.
(e) (Beraisa - R. Meir): A spoon's worth of Rekev - this is
from the joints of the fingers and above; Chachamim say,
1. R. Yochanan holds as Chachamim.
(f) Question: Chizkiyah does not hold as either Tana!
(g) Answer #1: A palm full equals the amount from the joints
of the fingers and above.
1. Question (Rav Simi bar Ada): What forces us to say
this? We have an alternative answer!
(h) Answer #2 ((Rav Simi bar Ada): From the joints of the
fingers and above means, from the joints towards the
wrist (i.e. the palm)!