R. Yosi: R. Meir is dead, and R. Yehudah is angry. If I am silent, what will be of the Torah?!

(R. Yosi): We must teach about a (full) Mes for the case when it lacks a k'Zayis of flesh.

Objection: Why must it be taught? If he shaves for one limb, all the more so for the full body!

Answer #1: R. Yochanan explained in a similar Mishnah that a (full) Mes is taught for a stillborn baby whose limbs are not tied with sinews (therefore, one of his limbs is not Tamei). The same answer applies here.

Answer #2 (Rava): It must be taught for bones comprising the majority of the bones or stature, even though the bones are not the volume of a quarter of a Kav.

(Mishnah): For a k'Zayis of Netzel...

Question: What is Netzel? (According to Tosfos' text, this is a Beraisa.)

Answer: It is flesh of a Mes that (liquefied and) hardened, or fluid (that exuded from a Mes) and can be boiled.

Question: What is the case?

If we don't know whether or not it came from the Mes, even if it hardened, why does he shave for it?

Answer #1: Rather, we know that it came from the Mes.

Rejection: If so, even if it didn't harden, he must shave!

Answer #2 (R. Yirmiyah): The case is, we have no prior knowledge. If it hardens, it is definitely fluid of the Mes. If it does not harden, (perhaps - apparently, Tosfos' text does not say 'perhaps') it is phlegm or mucus.

Question (Abaye): Does Netzel apply to animals?

Was the tradition from Sinai said only regarding a human Mes?

Or, is there no distinction? (Amora'im argue about a Neveilah, i.e. an animal that died without slaughter. One opinion says that a Neveilah has severe Tum'ah, i.e. can be Metamei even people and Kelim as long as it is fit for people to eat. It has light Tum'ah (like food) as long as a dog can eat it. The other opinion says that it has severe Tum'ah as long as a dog can eat it.)

There is no question according to the former opinion. (Netzel was never fit for people, so it never has severe Tum'ah.)

What is the law according to the latter opinion?

Answer (Beraisa): If one melted the Neveilah of a Tahor bird (Tosfos; Rashi - the Chelev of a Neveilah) over a fire, it is Tamei. If he melted it in the sun, it is Tahor.

If it has severe Tum'ah as long as it is fit for a dog, even in the sun, it should be Tamei!

Rejection: It becomes spoiled and unfit for a dog before it melts in the sun.

(Mishnah): When pouring a Tahor liquid into Tamei food, the top liquid remains Tahor, except for a very thick type of honey, or honey with beeswax;

Beis Shamai say that even porridge of ground or whole beans are exceptions, because they recoil when one ceases pouring.

Question (Rami bar Chama): Is a poured (solid) food considered connected?

Are the liquids in the Mishnah considered connected because drops recoil, and this does not happen to solids?

Or, is the law of the Mishnah because those liquids are thick, and solids are also thick?

Answer #1 (Rava - Beraisa): If a k'Zayis of Chelev of a Mes (the minimal amount to be Metamei) was melted:

If it was initially one chunk, it is Tamei. If it was initially disconnected pieces, it is Tahor.

(Surely, during the melting, part of the chunk poured down.) If a poured food were not considered connected, even if it started as a chunk, it would not be Tamei! (If it was ever considered disconnected, human actions cannot cause it to be considered connected.)

Rejection (R. Zeira): No, the case is, by cooking it, a k'Zayis rose to the top of the Keli and hardened there (it was always connected and never poured).

Answer #2 (Ravina - Mishnah): Beis Shamai say that even porridge of ground or whole beans are exceptions, because they recoil when one ceases pouring. (We are thinking that the first Tana agrees that recoiling makes the liquids connected, but he holds that porridge does not recoil enough.)

Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, the first Tana holds that they are connected because they are thick.

(Mishnah): (He shaves for) a spoon's worth of Rekev (corrosion of a Mes).

Question: How much is a spoon's worth?

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): It is a palm full.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is two handfuls.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): A spoon's worth of Rekev is from the joints of the fingers and above;

Chachamim say, it is two handfuls.

Question: R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim, but Chizkiyah is not like either Tana!

Answer #1: A palm full equals the amount from the joints of the fingers and above.

Objection (and Answer #2 - Rav Simi bar Ada): What forces us to say this? Perhaps 'from the joints of the fingers and above' means, from the joints towards the wrist (i.e. the palm)!