Talmud Nazir (E)

told [that he may defile himself for neither].
 
    [On the view of R. Akiba] what is the purpose of ‘Neither shall he go in to any dead body’?
4
 —
____________________
(1) His wife may have committed adultery.
(2) But through the male line.
(3) Num. I, 2. From this verse the inference is drawn that descent is counted in the male line; v. B.B. 109b.
(4) Lev. XXI, 12. Said of the High Priest.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 49b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 49b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 49b
‘To any’ excludes strangers;
1
 ‘dead’ excludes kinsmen, ‘body’ [nafshoth] excludes a quarter [of a
log] of blood coming from two corpses, [and informs us] that it renders unclean by being under a
covering [with it], as it is written, ‘neither shall he go in to any dead body [nafshoth]’.
2
 
    MISHNAH. THE NAZIRITE MUST POLL FOR [DEFILEMENT CONTRACTED FROM] THE
FOLLOWING SOURCES OF DEFILEMENT:FOR A CORPSE, OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF [THE
FLESH OF] A CORPSE, OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF NEZEL,
3
 OR A LADLEFUL OF
CORPSE-MOULD,
4
 OR THE SPINAL COLUMN, OR THE SKULL, OR ANY LIMB [SEVERED]
FROM A CORPSE OR ANY LIMB [SEVERED] FROM A LIVING BODY THAT IS STILL
PROPERLY COVERED WITH FLESH,
5
 OR A HALF-KAB
6
 OF BONES, OR A HALF-LOG
6
 OF
BLOOD, WHETHER [THE DEFILEMENT IS CON TRACTED] FROM CONTACT WITH
THEM, FROM CARRYING THEM, OR FROM OVERSHADOWING
7
 THEM; FOR
[DEFILEMENT CONTRACTED FROM] A BARLEY-GRAIN'S BULK OF BONE, WHETHER
BY CONTACT OR CARRYING. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE, A NAZIRITE MUST POLL AND
BE SPRINKLED ON THE THIRD AND SEVENTH DAYS; SUCH [DEFILEMENT] MAKES
VOID THE PREVIOUS PERIOD, WHILST HE DOES NOT BEGIN TO COUNT ANEW [HIS
NAZIRITESHIP] UNTIL HE HAS BECOME CLEAN AND BROUGHT HIS SACRIFICES.
 
    GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: After the demise of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, ‘Do not
allow the disciples of R. Meir to enter here, for they are disputatious and do not come to learn Torah,
but come to overwhelm me with citations from tradition.’ Symmachus forced his way through and
entered. He said to them, ‘Thus did R. Meir teach me: The nazirite must poll for [defilement
contracted from] the following sources of defilement: for a corpses or for an olive's bulk of [the flesh
of] a corpse.’ R. Judah was wroth and said to them, ‘Did I not tell you not to allow the pupils of R.
Meir to enter here, because they are disputatious? If he must poll for an olive's bulk of [the flesh of]
a corpse, then certainly he must poll for the corpse itself!
8
____________________
(1) I.e., that he may not defile himself by touching their corpses.
(2) The Hebrew has the plural of nefesh, indicating two corpses. The nefesh is identified with the blood (v. Deut. XII,
23) hence R. Akiba's inference; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 22 and 14.
(3) Coagulated corpse-dregs; v. infra 50a.
(4) The earth of a decomposed body.
(5) Sufficient flesh for the limb to have maintained itself when attached to the body.
(6) V. Glos. for these measures.
(7)  This type of defilement is caused by being, either under the same roof as, or perpendicularly above or below, the
source of defilement; cf. Num. XIX, 14ff.
(8) And this does not require explicit mention.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 50a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 50a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 50a
R. 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.
2
 
    Raba said: It is only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case where there is the greater
part
3
 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] corpsedregs 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 type
12
 only until [the animal is unfit to be eaten by]a
stranger,
13
 and is then of the lighter type
14
 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 clean
21
save only [a jet of] thick honey
22
 and heavy batter.
23
____________________
(1) The reference here is thought to he to Oh. II,1, dealing with defilement by overshadowing, where the same phrase
occurs. But the only occurrence of this statement of R. Johanan is found in Hul. 89b, with reference to our Mishnah; v.
Tosaf. Naz. and Hul.
(2) A single limb of such an abortion not containing an olive's bulk of flesh, would not convey defilement, but the whole
does.
(3) The greater part being equivalent to the whole.
(4) V. infra 52b for the explanation of these terms.
(5) And but for the fact that it constitutes the greater part of the frame of the corpse it would not convey defilement.
(6)  [Nezel is thus derived from 
kmb
 to separate’, cf. Gen. XXXI. 9 (Rashi); Petuchowski connects it with 
kzb
 ‘to
flow’, ‘melt away’.]
(7) It should not convey defilement.
(8) And causes defilement.
(9) Which do not defile.
(10) This question has no bearing on the nazirite, who does not lose any of his period for defilement caused by an animal
corpse.
(11) And animal corpse-dregs also defile.

---