Explanation: The Mishnah taught "Al ha'Mes" [regarding bones that comprise the majority of the number or the majority of his stature]. There is no complete limb.

He said that there is not a quarter-Kav for a bigger Chidush, for the Shi'ur for a Nazir is half a Kav. [It would be a Chidush even if there were a quarter-Kav. Rather,] even if there is not a quarter-Kav, he is Megale'ach, since there is the majority of the number or the majority of his stature.

However, if there is not the majority of the number or the majority of his stature, he does not shave unless there is a half Kav, like it says in our Mishnah that he does not shave for Tum'as Ohel of a quarter Kav of bones.

Alternate text: Some texts say "this is needed only for a spine or skull that does not comprise a quarter Kav of bones."

Support: Below (53a), we ask "Rava said that this is needed only for a spine or skull that does not comprise a quarter Kav of bones";

We do not find that Rava said so elsewhere, if not here. Therefore, they changed the text to say so.

Rejection: This text is wrong. How can we say that "for a Mes" in our Mishnah refers to a spine or skull? Our Mishnah explicitly teaches "for a spine and for a skull!"

Conclusion: The text should say "rather, for the majority of the stature or the majority of the number", which was not taught explicitly in our Mishnah.

Support: This is why Rava did not answer for the Mishnah in Ohalos like he answered here, that "for a Mes" that was taught means for the majority of the stature or the majority of the number, because the Mishnah in Ohalos explicitly teaches that the majority of the stature or the majority of the number has Tum'as Ohel!

Therefore, we can explain there "for a Mes" only like R. Yochanan (for a Nefel whose limbs were not tied with sinews).

Consequence: According to R. Yochanan, our Mishnah omitted the majority of the stature or the majority of the number, if he holds that a Nazir shaves for them.

Explanation: When it melted in the sun, it spoils from the heat of the sun. It is not proper for a person to eat it. Therefore, it is Tahor;

If you will say that Netzel applies to an animal, and the same applies to Nivlas Of Tahor, even in the sun it should be Tamei, for it is still proper for a dog!

Note: This is unlike our text of the Gemara, which said "if you will say until [it is not proper] for a dog. That text is difficult, for the question was only according to this opinion!

Rather, [we conclude that] Netzel does not apply [to an animal]. Therefore, it is Tahor. However, through a fire, since he overtly melted it, this is better than Netzel, which is only when it spoiled and melted by itself.

Explanation (cont.): We reject this. When did he melt it? After it already spoiled. After it spoiled from the strength of the sun, it is very putrid. It is like earth. It is not proper even for a dog!

This is unlike Netzel of an animal that melted without the sun, and it is still proper for a dog.

Explanation: In Sotah (48b), R. Yochanan explains that "Zifim" is honey that they falsify. Because it is exceedingly thick, they put water in it, and [the addition] is not recognized;

Reish Lakish says, it is called "Zifim" due to its place - "Zif va'Telem uv'Alos."

Explanation #1: "U'Tzefichis" is like "Tzefichis bi'Devash", i.e. it is removed from the hive together with the wax.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): It is a dough fried in honey.

Explanation: Regarding these, Nitzuk (pouring, can make what is on top) Tamei. Because it is very thick, it is considered a food, and it is as if the top and bottom are mixed together with each other, and they are connected.

Explanation: E.g. he melted lard and poured it into Tamei food. We ask according to Rabanan. Do we say that these [mentioned above are connected] because they have Riri?

Possibility #1: I.e. Devash ha'Zifim and Tzefichis, Chachamim said that they are connected because they have Riri, i.e. they coil back.

Even though they argue about bean porridge, which has Riri, those Riri are not significant according to the first Tana;

Beis Shamai hold that even though it does not have so much Riri, it is significant to connect the top to the bottom.

Other foods do not have Riri. Therefore, [connection through] Nitzuk does not apply to them.

Possibility #2: Or, perhaps the first Tana's reason is because they are Semichim, i.e. because they are thick. Also other foods are thick

Observation: There is no question according to Beis Shamai. Since they said "because they coil back", if so their reason is due to Riri.

Explanation: A full k'Zayis [of Chelev of a Mes], if he melted it, it is Tamei. "Chitcho" is like Heticho, i.e. he melted it through fire. It is Tamei like initially. (Be'er Moshe - Tosfos' text of the Gemara said "Chitcho" (he cut it). Tosfos explains that this is like Heticho (he melted it).)

Initially, it was a full k'Zayis, and it is still all together, like it explains below.

Possibility #1: This is because Nitzuk is a connection. Therefore, even if he melted it, it is impossible that it is not connected through Nitzuk.

Possibility #2: Or, it is because they were never separate, like it explains in the answer.

Citation of Gemara: It was shredded.

Explanation: [There were] morsels of Chelev of a Mes. Initially, there was not a full k'Zayis. Even if he melted it through fire and made it all one piece, it is Tahor;

This is like the Tosefta in Ohalos (4:3) concludes, because human connection is not a connection, and before he melted it, there was not a k'Zayis connected together.

It was not Metamei one who touched part of it, or even one who touched all of it, according to the opinion that does not hold that touching [a partial Shi'ur of Tum'ah] and returning to touch [enough to complete the Shi'ur, joins to be Metamei];

Therefore, also after he melted it, it is not considered a full k'Zayis, since this connection came through man.

Implied question #1: A Revi'is of blood that comes from two Mesim is Metamei according to the opinion that Yesh Em l'Mikra (the way tradition teaches to pronounce a word is primary), for it says "Al Kol Nafshos Mes" (Sanhedrin 4a)!

Implied question #2: Similarly, two half-k'Zeisim from two Mesim are Metamei, in Ohalos (4:5)!

Answer: This is only regarding Tum'as Ohel, for it is proper to tower above two halves together. However, it is not Metamei through touching.

Implied question: It says in Ohalos (3:3) that one who touches two half k'Zeisim of a Neveilah is Tamei!

Answer: There, we discuss when there is flattened flesh between them that connects them together.

Support: We answer like this in Chulin (124b).

Question: We should resolve from here that human connection is not a connection!

Answer: This is only regarding Tum'as Mes, that the Tum'ah comes from it. [Human connection is not a connection] to join it to a k'Zayis to be Metamei others. Perhaps this is a tradition;

However, to join foods to receive Tum'ah from elsewhere through the Shi'ur of k'Beitzah, there human connection is a connection, like this teaching (Me'ilah 4:5) that all foods join to a k'Beitzah.

Explanation: When he put it on the fire and boiled it, a k'Zayis rose to the mouth of the Kli at once, due to the power of the fire, and congealed. Now it is all together.

Observation: We must say that it congealed at the mouth of the Kli. If it did not congeal, even if it fell back to its place, it does not fall at once, rather, through Nitzuk;

The power of the fire does not help it to fall, the way it raised it. It rises at once, but falls through Nitzuk.