QUESTIONS: The Mishnah teaches that a k'Zayis of "Netzel" is Metamei b'Ohel. "Netzel" is the flesh of a corpse which dissolves into a putrid liquid and then coagulates. The Gemara asks whether the decomposing flesh of an animal has the status of Netzel and is Metamei b'Ohel. An ordinary corpse of a Neveilah is Metamei through Maga and Masa. When the flesh of a Neveilah decomposes into Netzel, is it Metamei like a k'Zayis of Netzel of a human? The Gemara asks whether only human Netzel is Metamei (because of a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai) but not Netzel of an animal, or whether Netzel is Metamei regardless of its source.

The Gemara says that according to the opinion that when a Neveilah decomposes to the extent that it is not fit for a Nochri to eat (that is, it becomes so repulsive that no person would eat it), it is not Metamei. According to that opinion, it is obvious that the Netzel of an animal is Tahor. The question applies only according to the opinion that decomposed flesh of Neveilah is Metamei even when it is not fit for a person to eat, as long as it is fit for a dog. According to that opinion, is the Netzel of an animal -- which is fit for a dog -- Metamei or not?

The Gemara is problematic for several reasons.

1. Why does the Gemara say that it is obvious that the Netzel of an animal is not Metamei according to the opinion that a Neveilah is Metamei only when it is fit for a Nochri to eat? A k'Zayis of human Netzel is not fit for a Nochri to eat and nevertheless the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai states that it is Metamei. The same Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai might also teach that the Netzel of an animal is Metamei! Since there is a possibility that there is no difference between man and animal with regard to Netzel and the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai applies to both equally, the question whether the Netzel of an animal is Metamei should apply even to Netzel of an animal which is not fit for a Nochri to eat.

2. According to the opinion that a Neveilah is Metamei as long as it is fit for a dog, why is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai necessary to teach that the Netzel of an animal is Metamei? It should be Metamei simply because it is fit for a dog! In fact, the same question apples to the Netzel of a person: why is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai necessary to tell that it is Metamei? Since it is fit for a dog to eat, it should be Metamei even without the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai!

3. TOSFOS (DH Ad l'Ger) writes that according to the opinion that flesh of a Neveilah is Metamei only when it is fit for a person, even if an animal's decomposed flesh is considered Netzel, it will be Tahor since it is not fit for a Nochri to eat. What does Tosfos mean? If an animal's decomposed flesh is considered Netzel, that means that a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai states that it will be Metamei! Why does Tosfos say that it will not be Metamei because it is not fit for a Nochri? With regard to what law does an animal's remains have the status of Netzel if it is not Metamei? (ARZEI HA'LEVANON)

ANSWER: These questions are based on the understanding that the Gemara's inquiry is whether or not the same Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which teaches that the Netzel of a person is Metamei also teaches that the Netzel of an animal is Metamei. However, the Gemara appears to be asking an entirely different question.

It is obvious that the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai applies only to human Netzel. The Gemara is asking why a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is needed to teach that human Netzel is Metamei. The dispute about whether a Neveilah is Metamei only when it is fit for a Nochri or even when it is fit for a dog applies only to Neveilah, not to human remains (as TOSFOS in Bechoros 23a writes). A human corpse imparts Tum'as Mes regardless of its condition (as no human remains are fit to be eaten by a person). Rather, the Torah decreed that a human corpse is Metamei.

The question of whether the remains are fit for consumption applies only to the flesh of a Neveilah. Since a Neveilah is edible flesh which is normally eaten by Nochrim, the Amora'im disagree about how fit for consumption must the Neveilah be in order to impart Tum'ah. Is the Neveilah Metamei only when it is still edible for a person, or is it Metamei even when it is fit for a dog and not for a person? Both opinions maintain that the Tum'ah of a Neveilah depends on the Neveilah's status as food, in contrast to the Tum'ah of a human corpse.

Accordingly, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which teaches that a k'Zayis of Netzel is Metamei is necessary even though human Netzel is edible for a dog. Since Netzel is not the original form of flesh, and the Torah states only that flesh is Metamei, one might have thought that only what the Torah mentions is Metamei (i.e. flesh), regardless of whether or not it is fit for a dog. Therefore, a k'Zayis of Netzel which is no longer in the form of flesh perhaps is not Metamei. The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that human Netzel is Metamei.

However, the Gemara clearly states that this Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai was taught only with regard to the Netzel of a person and not the Netzel of an animal. The question of the Gemara is whether Netzel of an animal is considered to be of the same substance as the Neveilah, since it is still edible. According to the opinion that decomposed flesh still has the status of Neveilah and can be Metamei as long as it is fit for a dog, is Netzel -- which is also fit for a dog -- considered the same entity as the flesh and is Metamei just as the flesh is Metamei (based on logical grounds)? Perhaps Netzel is different from decomposed flesh and it is not Metamei as a Neveilah? Although it may be edible like a Neveilah, nevertheless it is not a Neveilah. That is the question of the Gemara.

According to this understanding, it is clear why the Netzel of an animal is not Metamei according to the opinion that a Neveilah is Metamei only while it is fit for a Nochri; Netzel cannot be considered like the flesh of a Neveilah since it is not edible for a Nochri. According to the opinion that it is Metamei as long as it is edible for a dog, it is possible that the Netzel of an animal is also be Metamei because it is edible for a dog. This is the intent of TOSFOS (DH Ad l'Ger) who writes that even if an animal has Netzel, it is not Metamei according to the opinion that Neveilah must be fit for a Nochri in order to be Metamei. Tosfos means that even if the Netzel is considered to be the same entity as the flesh of an animal, and thus logically it should be Metamei just as the flesh is Metamei, nevertheless since the flesh itself is not Metamei when it is not edible for a Nochri, the Netzel -- which is not edible for a Nochri -- is not Metamei.