Parashat Hashavua DevarimHaftarah Isaiah 1:1-27Daf Yomi Chullin 77929 Judges 19 (230)Daily Mishnah Mishnah Kelim 17:16-17Daily Rambam Leavened and Unleavened Bread 7Daily Rambam (3 Chapters) Sacrificial Procedure 16-18Daf a Week Nedarim 90Halakhah Yomit Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 224:4-6Arukh HaShulchan Yomi Orach Chaim 318:47-54Tanakh Yomi Proverbs Seder 8Chok LeYisrael DevarimTanya Yomi 2 AvYerushalmi Yomi Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 31

Yerushalmi Yomi · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1-9

StandardExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisJanuary 4, 2026

This Yerushalmi sugya in Nazir 6:9 is a veritable intellectual crucible, forging foundational principles in the realms of ritual purity, vows, and the intricate laws of kodshim. It navigates the precise timing of a Nazir's release from his vows, the nuanced definitions of culinary processes, and the perennial challenge of bitul b'rov when sacred and mundane, or varying degrees of sacred, interact. The Gemara's characteristic dialectical thrust, juxtaposing Mishnaic statements with biblical verses and scholarly opinions, provides a rich tapestry for lomdus.

Sugya Map

  • Issue 1: The Nazir's Release from Prohibition.

    • Core Question: When exactly does a Nazir become permitted to drink wine and defile himself to the dead after completing his nezirut?
    • Mishnaic Dispute:
      • Tanna Kamma: After all ceremonies, including the Kohen's ritual of placing the offerings on the Nazir's hands and waving them, as implied by "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות יין" (Num. 6:20).
      • Rebbi Simeon: Upon the zrikat hadam (sprinkling of the blood) of one of his sacrifices. He derives this from a parallel to the giluach (shaving), which is a singular act.
    • Nafka Mina(s): The practical status of a Nazir who has completed zrikat hadam but not the tenufa (waving) or giluach. Does he incur malkot for drinking wine or touching a corpse?
    • Primary Sources: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1-2; Numbers 6:19-20.

  • Issue 2: Defining "Cooked" (Bishul) in Halakha.

    • Core Question: What constitutes bishul? Specifically, is shlika (scalding/parboiling) or tzli (roasting) considered bishul for the purposes of kodshim and nedarim?
    • Mishnaic & Halakhic Discussion:
      • The Mishnah states, "He cooked the well-being offering or scalded it" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1), implying shlika is a form of bishul.
      • A verse states "roasted" is called "cooked" ("They cooked the pesaḥ").
      • Rebbi Joḥanan vs. Rebbi Joshia: For vows, does one follow common usage (רבי יוחנן סבר בתנאי נדרים הולכין אחר לשון בני אדם) or biblical usage (רבי יאשיה סבר בתנאי נדרים הולכין אחר לשון תורה)?
    • Nafka Mina(s): If one vows to abstain from "cooked food," is roasted or scalded food permitted? The scope of bishul for various halachic contexts.
    • Primary Sources: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:3-7; Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:1:2-3; Mishnah Shabbat 7:2; Numbers 6:19; Exodus 12:8-9.

  • Issue 3: Nullification of Flavor (Bitul Ta'am) and Mixing Kodshim.

    • Core Question: When the Kohen's portion (the zro'a, fore-leg), which has a higher kedusha (it is kodesh kadashim for the Kohen, while the rest of the shelamim is kodesh kalim for the Nazir and his family), is cooked with the rest of the shelamim, what are the rules of bitul b'rov if flavors mix? Does kodesh absorb from chol, or vice-versa?
    • Halakhic Discussion:
      • The zro'a is "cooked... from the ram" (Numbers 6:19), implying they are cooked together.
      • Debate on bitul: Do condiments (like grapes/raisins) or meat-in-meat require bitul b'meah (100:1) or bitul b'shishim (60:1)?
      • Rebbi Ḥizqiah: "All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:8), implying a unique leniency for bitul in this context, where even 100:1 is permitted.
    • Nafka Mina(s): Practical application of bitul rules to kodshim, particularly when different kedushot are involved. The general principles of bitul ta'am.
    • Primary Sources: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:7-8; Numbers 6:19; Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:4; Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 10:1.

  • Issue 4: The Impediment (Ikuv) of Physical Rituals.

    • Core Question: Is the tenufa (waving) of the Nazir's offering an absolute requirement for his permit, even for one physically unable to perform it?
    • Halakhic Discussion:
      • Rav: Tenufa stops the Nazir (מעכבת הנזיר).
      • Objection: What if he has no "wings" (hands)? "The teachings for the nazir... whether or not he has wings" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9, citing Tosefta Nazir 1:5).
      • Rav's Resolution: It only stops one able to wave.
      • Samuel: Mesurah (measure/waving) stops a Nazir, drawing a parallel to the metzora's tenufa and application of blood/oil on thumbs (bahenot).
      • Objection: What if the metzora has no thumbs? "The teachings for the sufferer from skin disease... whether or not he has thumbs" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9, citing Leviticus 14:2).
      • Samuel's Resolution: Follows Rebbi Eliezer, who says "he puts it on their place" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9, citing M. Negaim 14:9).
    • Nafka Mina(s): The halachic status of disabled individuals regarding rituals requiring specific physical actions. The concept of ikuv in ritual law.
    • Primary Sources: Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9; Numbers 6:21; Tosefta Nazir 1:5; Leviticus 14:2, 14:14-28; Mishnah Negaim 14:9; Sifra Metzora 3(11).

Full Experience in the App

Listen. Chat. Go deeper.

Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.

Download on the App Store

Text Snapshot

The core of our sugya begins with the Mishnah describing the Nazir's purification process: מִשְׁנָה: הָיָה מְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים אוֹ שׁוֹלְקָן. כֹּהֵן נוֹטֵל אֶת הַזְּרוֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל, חַלַּת מַצּוֹת אַחַת מִן הַסַּל, וּרְקִיק מַצּוֹת אֶחָד, וְנוֹתֵן עַל יְדֵי הַנָּזִיר וּמְנִיף אוֹתָם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הֻתַּר הַנָּזִיר לִשְׁתּוֹת בְּיַיִן וּלְהִטָּמֵא לַמֵּתִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים הֻתַּר הַנָּזִיר לִשְׁתּוֹת בְּיַיִן וּלְהִטָּמֵא לַמֵּתִים. Translation: Mishnah: He cooked the well-being offering or scalded it. A Kohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram, one unleavened loaf from the basket, and one unleavened thin bread, places it on the nazir’s hands and waves it. Afterwards the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead. Rebbi Simeon says, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself with the dead. (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1-2)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

  • "או שולקן" (or scalded it): The juxtaposition of "מבשל" (cooked) and "שולקן" (scalded) in the Mishnah is crucial. It immediately raises the question of whether shlika is merely a type of bishul or a distinct culinary process with its own halachic implications. The Halakha section will explicitly address this.
  • "ואחר כך הותר הנזיר" (Afterwards the Nazir is permitted): This phrase, echoing Numbers 6:20 ("וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן"), is the source of the Tanna Kamma's position regarding the timing of the Nazir's permit. The term "ואחר כך" implies sequential completion of all prior stages.
  • "כיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים" (When one of the bloods was sprinkled): Rebbi Simeon's innovative position. He argues that the zrikat hadam, a singular, decisive act, is sufficient, rather than waiting for the entire sequence of the Kohen's actions. This challenges the plain reading of "ואחר כך".

Later in the Halakha section, we find the discussion of bitul and ikuv: הלכה: הכהן יקח את הזרוע בשלה מן האיל. אם בשלה, אני סבור בפרט. התורה אומרת מן האיל. כיצד הוא עושה? קוצצה ומותיר בה כמלא גרגרת שעורה. ולא יבלע הקדש מן החול ולא החול מן הקדש. חילפי שאל לרבי יוחנן ולרבי שמעון בן לקיש, קונדיטון אסור ביותר ממאתים? אמרו לו, קונדיטון לא ביותר ממאתים. ולא כן תנינן, כל שחומץ או ממתק או מגמא? אם תאמר במאה או במאתים, אפילו שאינו חומץ או ממתק או מגמא. אלא אנו עוסקים בענבים. רבי אסי בשם רבי יוחנן, אם לא היו צימוקים, אבל אם היו צימוקים הרי אלו קונדיטון ביותר ממאתים. רבי חייא בשם רבי יוחנן, אם לא היו מבושלים, אבל אם היו מבושלים הרי אלו קונדיטון ביותר ממאתים. רבי יסא בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי בשם בר פדייה: כל מקום שהטעם באחד במאה. רבי חייא בשם רבי יהושע בן לוי בשם בר פדייה: כל מקום שהטעם באחד בשישים. רבי שמואל בן רב יצחק אמר לרבי חייא בר אבא: רבי יסא פליג עלך והמשנה פליג על כולכון: כל שחומץ או ממתק או מגמא? אם תאמר במאה או במאתים, אפילו שאינו חומץ או ממתק או מגמא! אלא אנו מחזיקין עוד. רבי ירמיה אמר, פתרה בבשר בבשר. רבי יוסי אמר, בשר בבשר הרי הוא כשאר כל האיסורין מאחר דרבי אבהו אמר בשם רבי יוחנן, משערין כאילו הן בצלים או כרישים. (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:7-8)

רב אמר מעכבת הנזיר. ולא כן תנינן, תורת הנזיר, אפילו שאין לו כנפיים? מה רב אמר, אם יש לו. כהדא דתנינן כן: מי שיש לו כנפיים, מעכבת אותו. מי שאין לו כנפיים, אינה מעכבת אותו. שמואל אמר מדה מעכבת הנזיר, כהדא דתנופתו ובאגודלין של מוכה שחין. ולא כן תנינן, תורת המצורע, אפילו שאין לו אגודלין? פתר לה כרבי אליעזר דאמר, מניחה במקומן. (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

  • "הכהן יקח את הזרוע בשלה מן האיל" (The Kohen takes the cooked fore-leg of the ram): The phrase "מן האיל" (from the ram) is pivotal. It implies that the zro'a (Kohen's portion) is taken from the ram after it has been cooked, which raises the question of whether it was cooked with the rest of the ram's meat, and thus how different levels of kedusha interact during cooking.
  • "ולא יבלע הקדש מן החול ולא החול מן הקדש" (Does not the sanctified absorb from the profane, or the profane from the sanctified?): This is a rhetorical question introducing the bitul discussion, implying a chiddush or a problem with standard bitul rules when kodesh and chol (or different grades of kodesh) are involved.
  • "קונדיטון" (condiments): This term is used to introduce the general principles of bitul ta'am, specifically for items that add flavor but might be present in small quantities.
  • "מעכבת הנזיר" (stops the Nazir): The term ma'akev is technical, meaning an essential condition whose absence invalidates the entire process or delays the permit.
  • "אפילו שאין לו כנפיים" (even if he has no wings/hands): This expression, derived from Tosefta Nazir 1:5, challenges the idea of tenufa being ma'akev, as it seemingly implies that the mitzvah applies universally, irrespective of physical capability.
  • "מניחה במקומן" (he puts it on their place): Rebbi Eliezer's solution for a metzora without thumbs, offering a heuristic for ritual performance when physical limitations prevent exact fulfillment.

Readings

Penei Moshe (PM) on Nazir 6:9:1-3

Penei Moshe, a foundational commentary on the Yerushalmi, offers a straightforward, textual-explication approach, often clarifying the stam Gemara's reasoning.

  • On "או שולקן" (or scalded it): PM explains: "שליקה בישול יותר מדאי עד שנימוח וקמ"ל דבשליקה אינו יוצא מתורת בישול" (Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1). This clarifies that shlika is indeed a form of bishul, specifically "over-cooking until dissolved." The Mishnah's phrasing, by presenting bishul and shlika as alternatives, might suggest they are distinct, but PM asserts they are both within the category of bishul, with shlika being an extreme form. This is crucial for understanding the scope of "cooked" for Nazirite offerings and later for vows. The chiddush here is that even an extreme form of cooking, where the meat might lose its structural integrity, still qualifies as bishul for the shelamim.
  • On Tanna Kamma's "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות ביין" (and afterwards the Nazir is permitted to drink wine): PM connects this directly to the verse in Numbers 6:20: "דכתיב ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין אחר המעשים כלן אחר הקרבן ואחר התגלחת דס"ל התגלחת מעכבת" (Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:2). The Tanna Kamma interprets "ואחר" (afterwards) to mean after all the preceding actions described in the parsha – the offering, the Kohen's ritual, and the shaving (giluach). PM explicitly states that for the Tanna Kamma, giluach is ma'akev (an impediment). The chiddush lies in understanding "ואחר" as a comprehensive completion clause, encompassing the entire ritual sequence as a prerequisite for the Nazir's release.
  • On Rebbi Simeon's "כיון שנזרק עליו א' מן הדמים" (when one of the bloods was sprinkled): PM explains Rebbi Simeon's derivation: "דכתיב הכא ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין וכתיב התם אחר התגלחו את נזרו מה להלן אחר מעשה יחידי דלאחר גלוח עביד תנופה אף כאן אחר מעשה יחידי וכיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים מותר לשתות ביין ולהטמא למתים ואע"פ שעדיין לא גלח דתגלחת לא מעכבת וכן הלכה" (Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:3). Rebbi Simeon compares "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין" (Num. 6:20) with "אחר התגלחו את נזרו" (Num. 6:18). Just as the giluach is a single, definitive act after which other rituals (like tenufa) occur, so too, zrikat hadam is a singular, decisive act. Once this singular act of sprinkling the blood is performed, the Nazir is permitted. Critically, PM notes that Rebbi Simeon holds that giluach is not ma'akev. The chiddush is a hermeneutical one: deriving the timing of release not from the general sequence, but from a parallel to another singular, defining act in the Nazir's process. PM concludes "וכן הלכה" (and so is the halakha), indicating that Rebbi Simeon's view is accepted.

Korban HaEdah (KHE) on Nazir 6:9:1-3

Korban HaEdah, often complementary to Penei Moshe, frequently offers alternative or more concise formulations, sometimes expanding on a point implicitly.

  • On "או שלקן" (or scalded it): KHE concurs with PM's definition: "בישול יותר מדאי עד שנימוח" (Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1). It maintains that shlika is an intense form of bishul, leading to dissolution. This consistency between the two major Yerushalmi commentaries reinforces the understanding that shlika falls under the umbrella of bishul for kodshim.
  • On Tanna Kamma's "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר לשתות יין כו'" (and afterwards the Nazir is permitted to drink wine etc.): KHE again echoes PM: "דכתיב ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין אחר המעשים כולם" (Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:2). The emphasis is on "המעשים כולם" (all the acts), reinforcing the Tanna Kamma's interpretation of "ואחר" as a comprehensive completion.
  • On Rebbi Simeon's "כיון שנזרק עליו כו'" (when one of the bloods was sprinkled etc.): KHE, like PM, explains Rebbi Simeon's derivation from a textual comparison: "דכתיב הכא אחר ישתה הנזיר יין וכתיב התם אחר התגלחו את נזרו מה להלן אחר מעשה יחידי אף כאן אחר מעשה יחידי הא למדת כיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים מותר לשתות יין ולהטמא למתים וגילוח א"צ להזכיר שכך מצותו או שיגלח אז" (Korban HaEdah on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:3). KHE also draws the parallel between the singular act of giluach (shaving) and zrikat hadam. The chiddush for KHE is not only the derivation but also the explicit conclusion that giluach is not mentioned as an impediment ("וגילוח א"צ להזכיר"), implying its non-essential nature for the Nazir's permit to drink wine and defile himself. This aligns with PM's conclusion that giluach is not ma'akev for R' Shimon.

Sheyarei Korban (SK) on Nazir 6:9:1-2

Sheyarei Korban offers a more expansive, lomdus-oriented analysis, often bringing in Bavli parallels and Rishonim to resolve internal Yerushalmi difficulties.

  • On "או שלקן" (or scalded it): SK delves deeper into the definition of shlika: "כ' תו' פסחים דף לט ע"ב בד"ה לא שלוקין ולא מבושלין משמע דשליקה הוי טפי מבישול דאי לאו הכי הוי זו ואצ"ל זו וכ"מ בכמה דוכתין והא דתנן בנזיר היה מבשל השלמים או שלקן לח הוי זו ואצ"ל זו דקמ"ל בשליקה אינו יוצא מתורת בישול ע"כ. משמע מדבריהם כל מקום דתני שלוק היינו בישול יותר מדאי ופי' הר"ב שם עד שנימוח. וקשה הא אמרי' בת"כ ובחולין פ' ג"ה אין בשלה אלא שלימה ואי נימוח יותר מדאי איך יקח אח"כ הזרוע שלימה וזהו מ"ש נדרים רפ"ו מתני' דהכא קשיא להרא"ש" (Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1).
    • Chiddush 1: Distinguishing Shlika and Bishul. SK first cites Tosefta Pesachim 39b ("לא שלוקין ולא מבושלין") to argue that shlika is more than bishul ("הוי טפי מבישול"). If it were merely a type of bishul, the Mishnah would not need to state "או שלקן" as "זו ואצ"ל זו" (this implies that the second case is an a fortiori of the first, or a distinct case). This challenges PM/KHE's simple "בישול יותר מדאי."
    • Chiddush 2: Reconciling Shlika with "שלימה". SK then raises a significant kushya: If shlika means "נימוח" (dissolved), how can the Kohen take the "זרוע בשלה מן האיל" (cooked fore-leg from the ram) as a "שלימה" (whole) piece, as is required for kodshim according to Tanchuma and Chullin ("אין בשלה אלא שלימה")? This creates a clear internal contradiction within the Yerushalmi's definitions and requirements. SK notes that Rabbeinu Asher (Rosh) in Nedarim 6:1 also finds this Mishnah difficult.
    • Chiddush 3: Rambam's Resolution. SK offers a powerful terutz by citing Rambam (Hil. Nedarim 9:1): "והא דא"ר יוחנן לית כאן נכבשים אלא שלוקים. הטעם כיון שאין שם מים המבלבלים הטעם חוזרת ובולעת טעמה ולא משל אחרים. וזה כלל גדול בתורה וחקרהו ועמש"ל בד"ה ושניהן" (Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1). The Rambam defines shluk as meat cooked in a pot without water ("דשלוק מיקרי דבר המתבשל בקדירה בלא מים"). This definition resolves the kushya: if shlika is cooking without water, the meat need not be "נימוח" (dissolved); it can remain "שלימה" (whole). It also allows shlika to be a form of bishul (cooking) while being distinct enough to warrant its own mention in the Mishnah. This definition also has implications for flavor absorption (בלע טעמה) in the absence of diluting water, which SK briefly alludes to.
  • On "ואח"כ הותר הנזיר כו'" (and afterwards the Nazir is permitted etc.): SK addresses a kushya regarding the hettera meforesh (explicit permission) principle, citing a discussion in Tosafot Beitza 12a: "לעיל פ"ד ה"ה כתבתי בתו' בד"ה דברי כו' גם דברי ר"י תמוהים כו' ע"ש לפי מואי דאמרי' בכורות דף כו בגיזה ועבודה פסולי המוקדשין אהדרי למלתא קמייתא קשיא לר"י אלא לפמ"ש תו' ביצה דף יב כל היכא דכתיב היתירא מפורש לא אמרי' דהדר למלתא קמייתא ניחא דה"נ ההיתר מפורש דלת"ק אי לאו דכתב ואחר ישתה ה"א דשרי מיד ועדיין הדבר צ"ע ועמ"ש שם בתו' בד"ה רש"א כו' וצריכין להגיה וכצ"ל וקשה קרא ל"ל תיפוק ליה מדכתיב ונתן כו' וי"ל מכאן ליכא למילף כו'" (Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:2).
    • Chiddush: SK explores whether the explicit permission for the Nazir to drink wine, "ואחר ישתה הנזיר יין," implies that without this verse, he would be permitted immediately. This connects to a broader halachic principle: does a verse granting explicit permission imply a prior prohibition, or does it merely confirm an existing state? SK, citing Tosafot Beitza, argues that when an hettera meforesh is written, we do not say it reverts to an earlier state of issur. For the Tanna Kamma, the "ואחר ישתה" is precisely that hettera meforesh, explicitly tying the permit to the completion of the ritual, rather than assuming it would have been permitted earlier. This chiddush clarifies the Tanna Kamma's interpretation by grounding it in a hermeneutical rule about explicit permissions in Torah.

These Rishonim and Acharonim build a layered understanding of the sugya. Penei Moshe and Korban HaEdah provide the foundational understanding of the text, while Sheyarei Korban, by introducing external sources and resolving internal contradictions, elevates the discussion to a higher lomdus plane, revealing the intricate halachic principles at play.

Friction

The Knotty Problem of Shlika: Dissolved or Distinct?

The most pronounced friction in this sugya revolves around the definition of shlika (scalding/parboiling) and its implications, particularly for kodshim and nedarim. The Yerushalmi itself presents a tension that requires careful navigation.

The Kushya:

  1. Mishnah's Juxtaposition: The Mishnah states, "הָיָה מְבַשֵּׁל אֶת הַשְּׁלָמִים אוֹ שׁוֹלְקָן" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1). This "או" (or) suggests that bishul and shlika are distinct processes, or at least two alternative ways to prepare the shelamim. If shlika were merely a sub-category of bishul, why the explicit mention? As Sheyarei Korban (on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1) notes, citing Tosefta Pesachim 3:9 (Lieberman 39b) ["לא שלוקין ולא מבושלין"], the phrasing might imply shlika is more than bishul, or at least different enough to require separate mention.
  2. Penei Moshe/Korban HaEdah's Definition: Both Penei Moshe (on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1) and Korban HaEdah (on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1) define shlika as "בישול יותר מדאי עד שנימוח" (over-cooking until dissolved). This definition directly conflicts with the notion that the zro'a (fore-leg) must be taken "בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל" (cooked from the ram) and remain "שלימה" (whole).
  3. "אין בשלה אלא שלימה": The Gemara itself, in various places (e.g., Tanchuma Bereishit 6, Chullin 108b), states a principle regarding kodshim: "אין בשלה אלא שלימה" (cooked meat must be whole). If shlika results in meat that is "נימוח" (dissolved), how can the Kohen take a "whole" fore-leg? This is precisely the kushya raised by Sheyarei Korban (on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1) and attributed to the Rosh (Nedarim 6:1). The text itself then refers to the Kohen taking the zro'a (fore-leg) "בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל" (cooked from the ram), reinforcing the expectation of a whole, identifiable limb. The definition of shlika as "dissolved" thus seems fundamentally incompatible with the requirements for the shelamim.
  4. Vows: R' Yochanan vs. R' Yoshia: The subsequent discussion in the Halakha section ("Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food?") further complicates the matter. R' Yochanan says that for vows, one follows "לשון בני אדם" (common usage), while R' Yoshia says "לשון תורה" (biblical usage). If shlika is simply an extreme form of bishul (as PM/KHE suggest), then under "לשון תורה" it would certainly be forbidden. However, "לשון בני אדם" might distinguish between "cooked" and "scalded." This internal debate suggests that the definition of bishul is not monolithic across all halachic domains, adding another layer of complexity to shlika.

In essence, the Yerushalmi presents shlika as a distinct process in the Mishnah, defines it as "dissolved" through its commentators, yet simultaneously requires the offering to be "whole," and then debates how culinary terms are interpreted for vows. This multi-faceted tension creates a significant intellectual challenge.

The Best Terutz (or two): Rambam's Precision & Contextual Interpretation

The most elegant and comprehensive terutz for the core kushya of shlika is found by looking beyond the immediate Yerushalmi commentaries, as Sheyarei Korban (on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1) does by citing Rambam, Hilchot Nedarim 9:1.

Rambam's Definition of Shluk: The Rambam states: "ואם אינו דרכן לקרות מבושל אלא לבשר שנתבשל במים ובתבלין, הרי זה מותר בצלי ובשלוק" (Rambam, Hilchot Nedarim 9:1). This implies that if bishul is commonly understood as cooking with water and spices, then tzli (roasting) and shluk (scalding) are not included. Crucially, Sheyarei Korban interprets this Rambam: "נראה מדבריו דשלוק מיקרי דבר המתבשל בקדירה בלא מים" (Sheyarei Korban on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:1).

  • Terutz 1: Shlika as Cooking Without Water. According to this interpretation, shlika is a method of cooking in a pot without adding water. This immediately resolves the conflict with "אין בשלה אלא שלימה." Meat cooked in a pot without water will still cook, but it will not necessarily "נימוח" (dissolve) in the same way meat boiled in copious water might. It can remain intact and "whole." This allows the Kohen to take the "זרוע בשלה" that is "שלימה."
    • Resolution for Mishnah's Juxtaposition: This also explains why the Mishnah lists "מבשל או שולקן." They are both forms of bishul (cooking), but distinct enough in method (with water vs. without water) to warrant separate mention. Shlika, in this sense, is a type of bishul, but not merely an "over-cooked" version of the standard water-based bishul.
    • Resolution for Vows: This distinction is also highly relevant for R' Yochanan and R' Yoshia. If bishul implies cooking with water, then one who vows against "cooked food" (לשון בני אדם) might indeed be permitted shluk (cooked without water), even if shluk is considered a form of bishul according to lashon Torah for kodshim. The specific method of cooking becomes the defining factor.

Terutz 2: Contextual Interpretation of "נימוח" (A Deeper Dive into PM/KHE): While Rambam's definition is highly effective, it's also possible to offer a nuanced understanding of PM/KHE's "נימוח" in light of the kodshim requirements.

  • "נימוח" might not mean utterly dissolved into liquid, but rather that the meat becomes extremely tender, perhaps to the point of losing some fibrous structure, but still maintaining its form as a "זרוע." The shelamim are meant for consumption, and an extremely tender, "melt-in-your-mouth" consistency would be desirable. The principle of "אין בשלה אלא שלימה" primarily refers to the integrity of the limb as a whole, not necessarily its internal texture. Even if it's "overcooked" and tender, if the bone and general shape are maintained, it could still be considered "שלימה."
  • Furthermore, the zro'a is given to the Kohen after it's cooked. The act of "taking" it implies it is still a discernible limb. This contextual reading allows PM/KHE's definition to coexist with the requirement for a whole limb, albeit with some interpretive flexibility.

The Rambam's approach, highlighted by Sheyarei Korban, offers a more direct and less strained resolution to the fundamental contradiction. It provides a technical distinction for shlika that clarifies its unique mention in the Mishnah, reconciles it with the "whole limb" requirement, and provides a framework for the vow discussion.

Friction 2: The Leniency of Bitul for Kodshim

Another significant point of friction arises in the bitul discussion regarding the Kohen's zro'a (fore-leg) of the shelamim. The Kushya: The Gemara discusses the mixing of the zro'a with the rest of the ram during cooking. The zro'a is kodesh kadashim (for the Kohen), while the rest of the shelamim is kodesh kalim (for the Nazir and his family). The question is posed: "Does not the sanctified absorb from the profane, or the profane from the sanctified?" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:7). The discussion then devolves into the standard bitul ratios: "all sources of flavor one in a hundred" (רבי יסא), "all sources of flavor one in sixty" (רבי חייא). However, Rebbi Ḥizqiah makes a startling statement: "All I forbade to you at other places I permitted to you here. Since everywhere 100 is a prohibition, more than 100 is permitted, but here even 100 is permitted" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:8). This implies an exceptional leniency where bitul can occur even at 100:1 (or perhaps even less, as "even 100 is permitted" could imply no bitul is needed at all, or a very low ratio). This seems to contradict standard bitul principles, where issur (prohibition) is typically nullified in shishim (60:1) or meah (100:1) for ta'am (flavor), and usually means more than the ratio is permitted, not that the ratio itself is permitted. Why this unique leniency for kodshim?

Best Terutz: The leniency of Rebbi Ḥizqiah can be understood through a few lenses, primarily focusing on the nature of the issur and the parties involved.

  1. Nature of the Issur: The zro'a is not issur in the sense of a non-kosher food (treifa) or orlah. It is kodesh (sanctified) and designated for the Kohen. The "prohibition" is for a zar (non-Kohen) to eat it, or for it to be eaten outside its prescribed time/place. This is an issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit) for zarim, but for the Kohen, it's his designated food. When it's cooked with other kodshim (the Nazir's portion), the entire mixture is still kodesh. The leniency might stem from the fact that the underlying substance is kodesh, and the issue is one of designation rather than inherent impurity. Thus, the bitul requirement might be less stringent, as it's not about purifying an issur mamash (a truly forbidden substance) but about ensuring the proper allocation of kedusha.
  2. "Meat in Meat": The Gemara ultimately concludes this segment with Rebbi Yose's statement: "בשר בבשר הרי הוא כשאר כל האיסורין מאחר דרבי אבהו אמר בשם רבי יוחנן, משערין כאילו הן בצלים או כרישים" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:8). This implies that "meat in meat" (where the flavor of one type of meat mixes with another) is treated like other prohibitions, and we estimate its flavor as if it were a strong condiment like onions or leeks. This usually leads to a bitul b'shishim requirement. This suggests that Rebbi Ḥizqiah's extreme leniency might not be the final halachic word for all cases of mixing kodshim, but perhaps for very specific scenarios, or that his statement is a chiddush that is then refined by later rulings. The bitul b'shishim is a more general and widely accepted principle for ta'am.
  3. Leniency for the Kohen: The cooking is for the shelamim, which the Nazir and his family consume, and the zro'a is specifically for the Kohen. Perhaps the leniency is to facilitate the Kohen's portion, ensuring he can receive and consume it without undue complications from the mixing, given that he is the beneficiary of the kodesh. The issur is for zarim to eat the Kohen's portion, but if the Kohen himself is eating the mixture, the stringency might be reduced.

In summary, Rebbi Ḥizqiah's statement is a powerful chiddush highlighting a unique aspect of bitul in kodshim. While it seems to contradict standard bitul rules, it can be understood as reflecting the unique nature of issurei kedusha compared to issurei achila, or it might be a specific leniency that is later qualified by the more general "meat in meat" rule for bitul b'shishim.

Intertext

The sugya in Yerushalmi Nazir 6:9 is rich with intertextual connections, drawing from Tanakh, other Talmudic tractates, and foundational halachic works.

  1. Numbers 6:19-21 (Parshat Nazir): This is the foundational biblical source for the Nazir's purification process.

    • "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן הָאַיִל וְחַלַּת מַצָּה אַחַת מִן הַסַּל וּרְקִיק מַצָּה אֶחָד וְנָתַן עַל כַּפֵּי הַנָּזִיר אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת נִזְרוֹ: וְהֵנִיף אוֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה קֹדֶשׁ הוּא לַכֹּהֵן עַל חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְעַל שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן" (Numbers 6:19-20). These verses are the direct source of the Mishnah's description of the Kohen's ritual, the zro'a being "cooked from the ram," and the phrase "וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן" (and afterwards the Nazir shall drink wine), which sparks the debate between the Tanna Kamma and Rebbi Simeon regarding the timing of the Nazir's release.
    • "זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה עַל נִזְרוֹ מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה עַל תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ" (Numbers 6:21). This verse, specifically the phrase "זאת תורת הנזיר," is the source for the principle "תורת הנזיר, אפילו שאין לו כנפיים" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9), meaning the law applies to all Nazirim, even those without hands. This directly challenges Rav's assertion that tenufa (waving) is ma'akev (impedes) the Nazir's permit. The verse implies universality of the law, suggesting ritual requirements must be adaptable or have exceptions for the physically disabled.

  2. Leviticus 14:2, 14:14-28 (Laws of the Metzora): The sugya draws a direct parallel between the Nazir and the metzora (leper) to understand the ikuv of physical rituals.

    • "זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן" (Leviticus 14:2). Similar to the Nazir's case, the phrase "זאת תורת המצורע" (this shall be the law of the leper) is used to argue against the ikuv of applying blood/oil to the thumb and great toe for a metzora lacking these limbs: "תורת המצורע, אפילו שאין לו אגודלין" (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9).
    • "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הָאָשָׁם וְנָתַן עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית וְעַל בֹּהֶן רַגְלוֹ הַיְמָנִית" (Leviticus 14:14). This verse describes the ritual application of blood to the metzora's right ear, thumb, and great toe. Shmuel draws this parallel to argue that tenufa is ma'akev for the Nazir, comparing it to the metzora's essential rituals ("כהדא דתנופתו ובאגודלין של מוכה שחין" – Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:9). This intertextual move allows the Gemara to explore whether physical actions are absolute requirements or can be adapted.

  3. Tosefta Nazir 1:5 & B. Nazir 46a-b: These provide parallel discussions to the Yerushalmi regarding the ikuv of tenufa.

    • The Tosefta states: "זאת תורת הנזיר, אפילו שאין לו כנפיים" (Tosefta Nazir (Lieberman) 1:5), which is directly quoted in our Yerushalmi. This Tosefta is the basis for the kushya against Rav.
    • The Bavli (Nazir 46a-b) also discusses Rav's opinion that tenufa is ma'akev, and raises the "wings" kushya. However, the Bavli ultimately rejects Rav's opinion as practice ("לא קי"ל כרב" - B. Nazir 46b), a significant divergence from the Yerushalmi's approach which seeks to reconcile Rav's view. This highlights a classic nafka mina in psak between the two Talmuds.

  4. Mishnah Nedarim 6:1 & Mishnah Shabbat 7:2: These Mishnayot are explicitly referenced in the Halakha section to broaden the discussion of bishul.

    • Mishnah Nedarim 6:1: "הנודר מן המבושל, אסור בצלי ובשלוק?" (Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted roasted and scalded food?). This Mishnah is brought to develop the debate between R' Yochanan (common usage) and R' Yoshia (biblical usage) regarding the definition of "cooked" for vows, showing the broader application of the bishul definition.
    • Mishnah Shabbat 7:2: This Mishnah lists 39 avot melakha (primary categories of forbidden labor) on Shabbat, including bishul. The Yerushalmi here states: "A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: 'If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.' A verse [states] that 'roasted' is called 'cooked': 'They cooked the pesaḥ', etc." (Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:3-4). This ties the definition of bishul to Shabbat law, indicating that the precise meaning of culinary terms has far-reaching implications across different areas of halakha.

  5. Rambam, Hilchot Nedarim 9:1: As discussed in "Friction," the Rambam's definition of shluk ("cooked without water") is a critical intertextual reference, providing a harmonizing interpretation that resolves internal contradictions within the Yerushalmi's definitions of bishul and shlika. It demonstrates how Rishonim often synthesize and clarify earlier Talmudic discussions.

These intertextual references demonstrate the intricate web of halachic discourse, where principles and definitions established in one context are applied and tested in others, leading to a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of Torah law.

Psak/Practice

The sugya in Yerushalmi Nazir 6:9 yields several practical halachic conclusions and meta-psak heuristics.

  1. Timing of the Nazir's Permit (R' Shimon vs. Tanna Kamma):

    • The Yerushalmi (Penei Moshe on Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 6:9:1:3) explicitly states, "וכן הלכה" (and so is the halakha) that the psak follows Rebbi Simeon: the Nazir is permitted to drink wine and defile himself to the dead "כיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים" (once one of the bloods has been sprinkled). This is a significant leniency compared to the Tanna Kamma's requirement for all ceremonies to be completed.
    • Rambam (Hilchot Nezirus 8:16) concurs: "כיון שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים הרי הוא מותר ליין ולטומאת מתים" (Once one of the bloods has been sprinkled upon him, he is permitted to wine and defilement to the dead). This firmly establishes Rebbi Simeon's view as the accepted halacha.

  2. Definition of Bishul and Shlika for Nedarim:

    • The debate between Rebbi Joḥanan (common usage) and Rebbi Joshia (biblical usage) for vows is crucial. The Yerushalmi seems to lean towards Rebbi Joḥanan's view, at least initially, though the discussion of "food" is explained by R' Joshia.
    • Rambam (Hilchot Nedarim 9:1), in his ruling regarding vows, adopts the nuanced understanding of shluk as cooking without water. He states that if common usage defines "cooked" as meat cooked with water and spices, then one who vows against "cooked food" is permitted roasted and scalded food. This means that for nedarim, "לשון בני אדם" (common usage) can create distinctions between culinary methods, even if biblically they might all fall under a broader "cooked" category. This is a vital meta-psak heuristic for interpreting vows.

  3. Bitul Ta'am for Kodshim (Meat in Meat):

    • The discussion about bitul of the zro'a (Kohen's portion) when cooked with the rest of the shelamim presents a tension between various bitul ratios (100:1, 60:1) and Rebbi Ḥizqiah's unique leniency for kodshim.
    • The Yerushalmi's ultimate conclusion for "meat in meat" is that "הרי הוא כשאר כל האיסורין" (it is like all other prohibitions), and we estimate the flavor as if they were onions or leeks, which typically implies bitul b'shishim (60:1). This suggests that while Rebbi Ḥizqiah's chiddush on extreme leniency for kodshim is noted, the general principle of bitul b'shishim for flavor transfer in meat mixtures prevails.
    • Rambam (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:20-22) provides a comprehensive framework for bitul, including bitul b'shishim for flavor, and doesn't enumerate a unique, across-the-board leniency for kodshim of the type suggested by Rebbi Ḥizqiah. While specific kodshim might have unique bitul rules, the general rule of shishim is standard for ta'am.

  4. The Ikuv of Tenufa (Waving) for Disabled Individuals:

    • Rav's opinion that tenufa is ma'akev (an impediment) for the Nazir, and Shmuel's parallel to the metzora, are met with the kushya of "אפילו שאין לו כנפיים" (even if he has no hands/wings) or "אפילו שאין לו אגודלין" (even if he has no thumbs).
    • The Yerushalmi resolves this by explaining that ikuv applies only to "מי שיש לו כנפיים" (one who has hands) and that for those without, it is not ma'akev. For the metzora without thumbs, R' Eliezer's view of "מניחה במקומן" (he puts it on their place) is cited. This establishes a meta-psak principle: rituals requiring specific physical actions are ma'akev for those able to perform them. For those with disabilities, the mitzvah is either not ma'akev, or an alternative performance (like "on their place") is acceptable, ensuring the mitzvah is applicable to all, as implied by "תורת הנזיר" or "תורת המצורע."
    • The Bavli's Divergence: It is crucial to note that the Bavli (Nazir 46b) explicitly rejects Rav's opinion that tenufa is ma'akev for the Nazir ("לא קי"ל כרב"). This is a clear nafka mina between the Talmuds regarding the ikuv of tenufa. The Rambam (Hilchot Nezirus 8:16) implies tenufa is part of the process but does not explicitly state it is ma'akev for the Nazir's permit to drink wine/tumah, which aligns with the Yerushalmi's psak for R' Shimon that zrikat hadam is sufficient. However, the tenufa is still a required mitzvah to complete the korban process. The Yerushalmi's discussion on the disabled Nazir still provides a valuable heuristic for how halacha adapts to physical limitations in other contexts.

Takeaway

This sugya masterfully demonstrates the Talmud's meticulous textual analysis in defining ritual requirements and culinary terms, revealing how precise interpretation of scriptural phrases and Mishnaic juxtapositions shapes halachic outcomes. Furthermore, it offers profound insights into the nuanced application of ikuv (impediment) in ritual law, showcasing halacha's inherent adaptability to human physical limitations while upholding the integrity of divine command.

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com