1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah asked why Rebbi Meir found it necessary to state that a Nazir shaves on a complete corpse, having already informed us that he shaves on a 'k'Zayis' of corpse. We reject Rebbi Yosi's initial answer, that 'a corpse' refers to one which does not include a k'Zayis of flesh - on the grounds that that too, the Tana has already taught us when he included 'a limb from a corpse'.

(b)So we establish it like Rebbi Yochanan established a Mishnah in Chulin - by a stillborn baby whose limbs have not yet developed nerves.

(c)The Tana is speaking when the limbs do not yet contain a k'Zayis of flesh (though it is unclear why we need to say that, seeing as it does not have nerves anyway, and, in order to be Metamei, a limb must incorporate bone, flesh and nerves).

2)

(a)Rava establishes the Mishnah when the corpse contained the majority of bones (either in quantity or in volume) but not all of them. The Chidush (despite the fact that the Tana has already mentioned bones) is - that he is speaking here about a small corpse, and where that majority comprises less than a quarter of a Kav.

(b)In spite of the fact that the Shi'ur for bones is half a Kav, Rava nevertheless mentions the Shi'ur of a quarter - to teach us that by a complete corpse, even that is Metamei.

(c)Some have the text 'Lo Tzericha Ela l'Shedra v'Gulgoles she'Ein Bo Rova Atzamos' - which we reject on the grounds that the Tana includes them specifically in the Mishnah.

(d)According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana simply omits two cases of 'Rov Binyano' and 'Rov Minyano' (based on the principle 'Tana v'Shayar'). Alternatively, he might not include them in his list - because he holds that a Nazir does not shave for them.

3)

(a)The Beraisa describes 'Natzal' either as flesh from a corpse which melted and then congealed - or as fluid from a corpse which bubbles when it is heated.

(b)A Nazir is not obligated to shave if it is he is uncertain as to whether the fluid that he touched was melted flesh, or mucus or phlegm.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyahu explains that the flesh needs to have congealed to ascertain that it is not mucus or phlegm from the corpse (which do not congeal and which are not Metamei).

(d)And the fluids need to bubble when they are heated - for the same reason (because mucus and phlegm do not bubble when they are heated).

4)

(a)Abaye asked Rabah whether the Chumra of Natzal pertains to animals too. Bearing in mind that a Nazir does not need to shave for Tum'as Neveilah, the ramifications of this She'eilah are - whether it renders the person who touches or carries it Tamei or not.

(b)Neveilah is referred to as a Tum'ah Chamurah - because it renders Tamei the person who carries it (even when he is not actually touching it).

(c)Everyone agrees that Tum'ah Kalah (with regard to something edible) remains in effect until it becomes unfit for canine consumption. Some say that the same Shi'ur applies to Tum'ah Chamurah. Others say that the Shi'ur by Tum'ah Chamurah is - until it becomes unfit for a Ger to eat (i.e. human consumption.

(d)Abaye's She'eilah will be irrelevant - according to this latter opinion, because, seeing as it is unfit for human consumption, it is obvious that cannot be Metamei either.

5)

(a)In connection with the fat of the Neveilah of a Tahor bird, the Tana in a Beraisa makes a distinction between whether it was melted by fire - in which case it remains Tamei, or by the sun - when it becomes Tahor.

(b)Fat Chelev from the Neveilah of a Tahor bird - is considered Tum'ah Chamurah (because it is Metamei a person who carries it).

(c)On the assumption that Chelev melted by the sun is still fit for canine consumption, we attempt to prove from this Beraisa - that Tum'ah Chamurah is no longer Metamei as soon as it is becomes unfit for human consumption.

(d)We refute this proof however, on the grounds - that when fat is melted by the sun it is no longer fit for canine consumption (and is considered like dust).

6)

(a)We have learned in a Mishnah in Machshirin 'Kol ha'Nitzok Tahor (Chutz ... )', which means - that whenever one pours a Tahor liquid into a Tamei one, the Tahor one remains Tahor.

(b)The two exceptions are 'Devash ha'Zifim' and 'ha'Tzapichis'. 'Devash ha'Zifim' might be honey from Zif and 'Tzapichis' might be honey that is removed from the hive together with the honey-combs. Alternatively ...

1. ... 'Devash ha'Zifim' is - 'forged' honey (to which water was added on account of its unusual thickness).

2. ... 'ha'Tzapichis' is - a dough that was fried with honey.

(c)The Tana Kama's basic reason for this distinction is - because, whereas in most cases, what still remains in the top receptacle is not considered joined to what is in the bottom one, in these two cases it is (we will see why shortly).

(d)Beis Shamai add to the Tana Kama's exceptions - a 'Mikpah Shel Gerisin v'Shel Pul' (a barley stew and a certain type of bean stew).

7)

(a)Rami bar Chama asks whether (according to the Chachamim) all solids are included in the exceptions, because they are thick, or whether - the reason of 'Devash ha'Zifim' and 'ha'Tzapichis' is (not because they are thick, but) because they tend to shrink backwards, which other foods do not.

(b)The Beraisa says - that a k'Zayis of Chelev from a corpse that has been melted by heat ...

1. ... when it is complete - remains Tamei.

2. ... when it has first been cut up into pieces - becomes Tahor.

(c)The reason for this latter Halachah is - because (despite the fact that the heating process joins the pieces together, making a complete k'Zayis), we have a principle (pertaining the realm of Tum'ah) that 'Chibur Al Yedei Adam Eino Chibur' (what is joined manually is not considered joined).

8)

(a)We will reconcile the principle 'Chibur Al Yedei Adam Eino Chibur' - with the fact that a Revi'is of blood that comes from two corpses is Metamei b'Ohel - by restricting it further to the Tum'ah of touching. It will not apply however to Tum'as Ohel, seeing as all the pieces automatically become Tamei simultaneously (which is not the case by touching).

(b)And when the Mishnah in Ohalos declares Tamei somebody who touches two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah - it is speaking where they are joined by a strip of meat 'beaten flat'.

9)

(a)In any case, Rava tries to prove from the Reisha of the Beraisa - that, based on the assumption that inevitably, some drops of fat are bound to separate from the mass as it is in the process of melting (even though it re-joins it afterwards) 'Nitzuk Chibur' applies to all foods.

(b)To refute the proof from the Reisha of the Beraisa - Rebbi Zeira and Mar Brei d'Ravina establish the case where a pillar of fire reached the top of the receptacle containing the fat and heated it up without any of it falling into the receptacle (so that none of it separated from the mass).

(c)Ravina tries to resolve the She'eilah from Beis Shamai, who say 'Af ha'Mikpah Shel Gerisin ... ', and whose reason is clearly because these foods shrink backwards (because a bean-stew is not thick). Consequently - Ravina assumes that this is also the Chachamim's reason, and the Machlokes is whether the small amount of shrinkage that occurs in the case of a bean-stew is sufficient to forbid the Tahor food (Beis Shamai) or not (the Chachamim).

(d)Rav Ashi refutes Ravina's proof by explaining that even though Beis Shamai's reason is because of shrinkage, that of the Chachamim is based on the density of the food, and a bean-stew is not sufficiently thick to forbid the Tahor food on top.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah includes 'Melo Tarvad Rekev' in the list of things for which a Nazir shaves. According to Chizkiyah, this constitutes a complete palm-full - (i.e. a palm-full not counting the fingers).

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Melo Tarvad Rekev' means - the amount that his two hands cupped together can hold.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan concurs with the Chachamim, who say the same in a Beraisa. Rebbi Meir says there 'mi'Kishrei Eztzba'os ule'Ma'alah' - which we think means what a person can hold in the cupped fingers of one hand (from the joints till the fingertips).

11)

(a)Chizkiyah does not seem to concur with either Tana. We initially reconcile his opinion with that of Rebbi Meir - by equating the two Shi'urim (what a person holds in his cupped fingers and what he holds in his palm).

(b)To answer the Kashya on Chizkiyah, Rav Shimi bar Ada interprets 'mi'Kishrei Etzbe'osav' (mentioned by Rebbi Meir) to mean - (not from the joints till the fingertips, but) from the joints until the wrist.