ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 50
(a) Rebbi Yehudah asked why Rebbi Meir found it necessary to state that a
Nazir shaves on a complete corpse, having already informed us that he shaves
on a 'k'Zayis' from a corpse. We reject Rebbi Yossi's initial answer, that
'a corpse' refers to one which does not include a k'Zayis of flesh - on the
grounds that that too, the Tana has already taught us when he said 'a limb
from a corpse'.
(b) So we establish it like Rebbi Yochanan established a Mishnah in Chulin -
by a stillborn baby whose limbs have not yet developed nerves.
(c) The Tana is speaking when the limbs do not yet contain a k'Zayis of
flesh (Tosfos [though it is unclear why, seeing as it does not have nerves
anyway, and, in order to be Metamei, a limb must incorporate bone, flesh and
(a) Rava establishes the Mishnah when the corpse contained the majority of
bones (either in quantity or in volume) but not all of them. The Chidush
(despite the fact that the Tana has already mentioned bones) is - that he is
speaking here about a small corpse, and where that majority comprizes less
than a Rova ha'Kav.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Shiur for bones is half a Kav, Rava
nevertheless mentions the Shiur of a quarter - to teach us that by a
complete corpse, even that is Metamei (Tosfos).
(c) Some have the text 'Lo Tz'richa Ela le'Shedra ve'Gulgoles she'Ein Bo
Rova Atzamos' - which we reject on the grounds that the Tana already
includes it in the Mishnah.
(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana simply omits two cases of 'Rov
Binyano' and 'Rov Minyano' (based on the principle 'Tana ve'Shayar').
Alternatively, he might not include them in his list - because he holds that
a Nazir does not shave for them.
(a) The Beraisa describes 'Natzal' in one of two ways: one of them as flesh
from a corpse which melted and then congealed. The other - as fluids from a
corpse which bubble when they are heated.
(b) A Nazir is not obligated to shave if it is uncertain whether the fluid
that he touched was melted flesh on the one hand, or mucus or phlegm on the
(c) The flesh needs to have congealed (not because melted flesh is not
Metamei, Rebbi Yirmiyah explains, but) - because otherwise, it may be mucus
or phlegm from the corpse (which do not congeal and which are not Metamei).
(d) And the fluids need to bubble when they are heated - for the same reason
(because mucus and phlegm do not bubble when they are heated).
(a) Abaye asked Rabah whether the Chumra of Natzal pertains to animals too.
Bearing in mind that a Nazir does not need to shave for Tum'as Neveilah, the
ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether it renders the person who
touches or carries it Tamei or not.
(b) Neveilah is referred to as a Tum'ah Chamurah - because it renders Tamei
the person who carries it (even when he is not actually touching it).
(c) Everyone agrees that Tum'ah Kalah (with regard to something edible)
remains in effect until it becomes unfit for canine consumption. Some say
that the same Shiur applies to Tum'ah Chamurah. Others say that the Shiur by
Tum'ah Chamurah is - the moment it is unfit for a Ger (meaning a
human-being) to eat.
(d) Abaye's She'eilah will be irrelevant - according to this latter opinion,
because, seeing as it is unfit for human consumption, it is obvious that it
will not be Metamei either.
(a) In connection with the fat of the Neveilah of a Tahor bird, the Tana in
a Beraisa makes a distinction between whether it was melted by fire - in
which case it remains Tamei, or by the sun - when it becomes Tahor.
(b) Fat from the Neveilah of a Tahor bird - is considered Tum'ah Chamurah
(because it is Metamei a person who carries it).
(c) On the assumption that fat melted by the sun is still fit for canine
consumption, we attempt to prove from this Beraisa - that Tum'ah Chamurah is
no longer Metamei as soon as it is becomes unfit for human consumption.
(d) We refute this proof on the grounds - that when fat is melted by the sun
it is no longer fit for canine consumption (and is considered like dust).
(a) We have learned in a Mishnah in Machshirin 'Kol ha'Nitzok Tahor (Chutz
... )' - meaning that whenever one pours a Tahor liquid into a Tamei one,
the Tahor one remains Tahor.
(b) The two exceptions are 'D'vash ha'Zifim' and 'ha'Tzapichis'. 'D'vash
ha'Zifim' might be honey from Zif and 'Tzpichis' might be honey that is
removed from the hive together with the honey-combs.
1. 'D'vash ha'Zifim' might also mean - honey that is 'forged' (to which
water was added on account of its unusual thickness.
(c) The Tana Kama's basic reason for this distinction is - because, whereas
in most cases, what still remains in the top receptacle is not considered
joined to what is in the bottom one, in these two cases it is ( we shall see
2. 'ha'Tzapichis' might also mean a dough that was fried with honey
(d) Beis Shamai add a 'Mikpah shel G'risin ve'shel Pul' (a certain type of
bean stew) to the Tana Kama's exceptions.
(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether (according to the Chachamim) all foods are
included in the exceptions, because they are thick. The other side of the
She'eilah is - that the reason of 'D'vash ha'Zifim' and 'ha'Tzapichis' is
(not because they are thick, but) because they tend to shrink backwards,
which other foods do not.
(b) The Beraisa says - that a k'Zayis of Cheilev from a corpse that was
melted by heat ...
1. ... when it is complete - remains Tamei.
(c) The reason for this latter Halachah is - because (despite the fact that
the heating process joins the pieces together, making a complete k'Zayis),
we have a principle (pertaining the realm of Tum'ah) that 'Chibur al-Yedei
Adam Eino Chibur' (what is manually joined is not considered joined).
2. ... when it has first been cut up into pieces - becomes Tahor.
(d) We will reconcile the principle 'Chibur al-Yedei Adam Eino Chibur' -
1. ... the fact that a Revi'is of blood that comes from two corpses is
Metamei be'Ohel - by restricting it to the Tum'ah of touching. It will not
apply however to Tum'as Ohel, seeing as all the pieces automatically become
Tamei simultaneously (Tosfos).
2. ... the ruling 'Kol ha'Ochlin Mitztarfin li'che'Beitzah' - by restricting
it further to when it is Metamei (seeing as the Tum'ah originated from
there). It does not apply however, to receiving Tum'as Ochlin (Tosfos).
(a) In any case, we try to prove from the Reisha of the Beraisa - that,
based on the assumption that inevitably, some drops of fat are bound to
separate from the mass as it is in the process of melting (even though it
re-joins it afterwards) 'Nitzuk Chibur' applies to all foods.
(b) To refute the proof from the Reisha of the Beraisa - Rebbi Zeira and Mar
Brei de'Ravina establish the case when a pillar of fire reached the top of
the receptacle containing the fat and heated it up without any of it falling
into the receptacle (so that none of it separated from the mass).
(c) Ravina tries to resolve the She'eilah from Beis Shamai, who say 'Af
ha'Mikpah shel G'risin ... ', and whose reason is clearly because these
foods shrink backwards (because the bean-stew is not thick). Consequently -
Ravina assumes that the Chachamim's reason is because of that too, and the
Machlokes is whether the small amount of shrinkage that occurs in the case
of a bean-stew is sufficient to forbid the Tahor food (Beis Shamai) or not
(d) Rav Ashi replies - that even though Beis Shamai's reason is because of
shrinkage, the Chachamim's reason is based on the density of the food, and a
bean-stew is not sufficiently thick to forbid the Tahor food on top.
(a) Our Mishnah includes 'Me'lo Tarvad Rekev' in the list of things for
which a Nazir shaves. According to Chizkiyah, this constitutes a complete
1. Chizkiyah means - a palm-full not counting the fingers.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan concurs with the Chachamim who say the same in a Beraisa.
Rebbi Meir says there 'mi'Kishrei Eztzba'os u'Lema'alah' - which we think
means what a person can hold in the cupped fingers of one hand (from the
joints till the fingertips).
2. According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Me'lo Tarvad Rekev' means the amount that
his two hands cupped together can hold.
(c) Chizkiyah does not seem to concur with either Tana. We initially
reconcile his opinion with that of Rebbi Meir - by equating the two Shiurim
(what a person holds in his cupped fingers and what he holds in his palm).
(d) To answer the Kashya on Chizkiyah, Rav Shimi bar Ada interprets
'mi'Kishrei Etzbe'osav' (mentioned by Rebbi Meir) to mean - (not from the
joints till the fingertips, but) from the joints till the wrist.