(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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


(a) R. Yosi: R. Meir is dead, R. Yehudah is angry - if I am silent, what will be of the Torah!
1. R. Yosi: A (full) corpse must be taught for the case when it lacks an olive's worth of flesh.
2. Objection: Still, why must it be taught - if he shaves for 1 limb, all the more so for the full body!
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 not Tamei).
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.
(b) (Mishnah): For an olive's worth of Neztel ...
(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 for it?
2. Suggestion: Rather, we know that it came from the corpse - if so, even if it didn't harden, he must 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 mucus.
(g) Question (Abaye): Does Netzel apply to animals?
1. Was the tradition from Moshe from Mount Sinai said only by a human corpse?
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 severe Tum'ah).
4. What is the law according to the latter opinion?
(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.
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.
(c) Question (Rami bar Chama): Is a poured (solid) food considered connected?
1. Are the liquids in the Mishnah considered connected because drops recoil, and this does not happen by solids?
2. Or, the law of the Mishnah is because those liquids are thick, and solids are also thick?
(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.
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 considered connected.)
(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 corpse) ...
(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, 2 handfuls.
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)!
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,