Folio 50aR. Jose' commented: People will say, 'Meir is dead, Judah is angry, Jose is silent, what is to become of the Torah?' And so R. Jose explained: It was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself explicitly] for the case of a corpse that has not an olive's bulk of flesh upon it. — But it can still be objected: If [the nazirite] must poll for a [single] limb, then surely he must poll for the whole [skeleton]! — It must therefore be as R. Johanan explained [elsewhere],1 that it was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case of an abortion in which the limbs were not bound together by the sinews, and here too it refers to an abortion in which the limbs are not bound together by the sinews.2Raba said: It is only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case where there is the greater part3 of the frame [of a corpse]4 or the majority [of its bones],4 which do not amount altogether to a quarter [kab] of bones.5 FOR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF [THE FLESH OF] A CORPSE, OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF NEZEL: And what is NEZEL? The flesh of a corpse that has coagulated, and liquid secretion [from a corpse] that has been heated [and has congealed].6 What are the circumstances? If it be not known to belong to [the corpse], what does it matter if it has coagulated?7 Whilst if we know that it pertains to [the corpse], then even though it has not coagulated [it should defile]! — R. Jeremiah replied: [Secretion] of uncertain origin is referred to. If it coagulates, it is [cadaverous] secretion,8 otherwise it may be phlegm or mucus.9 Abaye inquired of Rabbah: Is there [defilement through] corpse-dregs in the case of [defilement caused by] animals[' corpses], or not?10 Was the tradition only that corpse-dregs coming from man [defile], but not corpse-dregs coming from animals, or is there no difference?11 According to the opinion that the uncleanness is of the heavier type12 only until [the animal is unfit to be eaten by]a stranger,13 and is then of the lighter type14 until [it is unfit to be eaten by] a dog,15 there is no difficulty,16 but according to the opinion that the uncleanness remains of the heavier type until [it is unfit to be eaten by] a dog, what answer can be given?17 — Come and hear: If he melted [unclean fat] with fire, it remains unclean, but if in the sun,18 it becomes clean. Now if you assume [that the animal remains unclean] until [it is unfit to be eaten by] a dog, then even if [the fat has been melted] in the sun, it should also [remain unclean]!19 — It only melts after it has decomposed in the sun, and since it has decomposed it is [nothing but] dust.20 We have learnt elsewhere: Any jet of liquid [poured from a clean to an unclean vessel] is clean21 save only [a jet of] thick honey22 and heavy batter.23
Nazir 50bBeth Shammai say: Also one of a porridge of grist or beans, because [at the end of its flow] it springs back.1Rammi b. Hama asked: is there [transference of defilement through] a jet in the case of foodstuffs,2 or does [transference of defilement through] a jet not apply to foodstuffs? Do we say [that the principle applies to thick honey and batter] because they contain liquor,3 whereas [foodstuffs] contain no liquor,4 or is it perhaps because they are compact masses5 and [foodstuffs] are also compact masses?6 — Raba replied: Come and hear: A whole piece of fat7 from a corpse, if melted, remains unclean, but if it was in pieces8 and they were melted, it remains clean.9 Now if you assume [that the principle of transference of defilement through] a jet does not apply to foodstuffs, [then even if it be] whole and then melted it should become clean!10 — R. Zera commented: I and Mar, son of Rabina, interpreted [the above teaching as follows]: It refers to where at the time of melting, the column of fire ascended to the mouth of the vessel11 and [the fat] coagulated whilst it was all together.12 Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear [the following]: Beth Shammai say: Also one of a porridge of grist or of beans, because [at the end of its flow] it springs back!13 — What does this prove? In the other cases14 it may be the fact that they are compact masses [which causes defilement] though here it is because of the liquor.15 OR A LADLEFUL OF CORPSE-MOULD: And what is its size? — Hezekiah said: The palm of the hand full. R. Johanan said: The hollow of the hand16 full. It has been taught: The [measure of the] ladleful of corpsemould mentioned is, from the bottom of the fingers upwards.17 So R. Meir. The Sages say [it means] the hollow of the hand full.18 Now R. Johanan at least agrees with the Rabbis; but with whom does Hezekiah agree, neither with R. Meir, nor with the Rabbis? — I will tell you. The palm of the hand full and from the joints of the fingers upwards is the same measure.19 R. Shimi b. Adda said to R. Papa: How is it known that 'from the joints of the fingers and upwards' means towards the tips? Perhaps it means lower down the hand20 when [the measure] is the palm of the hand full?21 This was not solved.22 - To Next Folio -
|
||||||