## Nazir Daf 50a

###### Nazir 50a:1
[Nazir 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:1)

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?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Nazir 50a:2
[Nazir 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 50a:3
[Nazir 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 50a:4
[Nazir 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 50a:5
[Nazir 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nazir 50a:6
[Nazir 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 50a:7
[Nazir 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:7)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Nazir 50a:8
[Nazir 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 50a:9
[Nazir 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 50a:10
[Nazir 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 50a:11
[Nazir 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 50a:12
[Nazir 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:12)

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּצּוֹק — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 50a:13
[Nazir 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/50a:13)

חוּץ מִדְּבַשׁ הַזִּיפִים וְהַצַּפִּיחִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.