QUESTIONS: The Mishnah teaches that a k'Zayis of "Netzel" is Metamei b'Ohel
("Netzel" is the flesh of a corpse that dissolves into a putrid liquid and
then coagulates). The Gemara asks whether the decomposing flesh of an animal
has the status of Netzel to be Metamei. We know that the corpse of a
Neveilah is Metamei through Maga and Masa. If the flesh of a Neveilah
decomposes into "Netzel," will it be Metamei b'Ohel just like a k'Zayis of
Netzel of a person? The Gemara asks that perhaps we only have a Halachah
l'Moshe mi'Sinai to be Metamei a Netzel that comes from a person, but not
that which comes from an animal, or perhaps it does not make a difference
whether it comes from a person or from an animal.
The Gemara goes on to say that according to the opinion that holds that when
a Neveilah decomposes so much that it is not fit for a Nochri to eat,
meaning that it is so disgusting that no person would eat it, then it is not
Metamei. According to that opinion, it is obvious that the Netzel of an
animal is Tahor. The question is only according to the opinion that says
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,
what will be the Halachah of the Netzel of an animal, which is also fit for
a dog? Will that be Metamei or not?
There are a number of questions that we may ask on this Gemara.
First, 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 Netzel that comes from
a person is also not fit for a Nochri to eat, and nevertheless we find that
the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai says that it is Metamei! The same Halachah
l'Moshe mi'Sinai might also be teaching that the Netzel of an animal is
Metamei! If 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 animals as well, then the same question should apply even though the
Netzel of an animal is not fit for a Nochri to eat!
Second, according to the other opinion that says that a Neveilah is Metamei
as long as it is fit for a dog, why would we need a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai to teach us 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 do we need a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai to tell us that it is Metamei? If it is fit for a dog, then
according to this opinion that decomposed flesh is Metamei as long as it is
fit for a dog, it should be Metamei because it is fit to feed to a dog!
Third, TOSFOS (DH Ad l'Ger) says that according to the first opinion that
says that flesh is only Metamei when it is fit for a person, then even if we
say that an animal does have "Netzel," nevertheless it will be Tahor since
it is not fit for a Nochri to eat. What does that mean? If we say than an
animal does have "Netzel," that means that there is a Halachah l'Moshe
mi'Sinai that an animal has Netzel and so it *will* be Metamei! Why is
Tosfos saying that it will not be Metamei because it is not fit for a
Nochri? In what sense could say that an animal does have Netzel even though
it will not be Metamei? There is no point of Netzel other than the Tum'ah of
Netzel! (ARZEI HA'LEVANON)
ANSWER: These questions are based on the understanding that the question of
the Gemara is whether or not the same Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai which says
that the Netzel of a person is Metamei also says 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 a person.
The Gemara is asking, though, why a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai is needed to
tell us that the Netzel of a person is Metamei. The first point that needs
clarification is that the whole Machlokes concerning whether a Neveilah is
Metamei when it is only fit for a Nochri, or even when it is fit for a dog,
applies only to Neveilah and not to a person, like TOSFOS in Bechoros (23a)
says. Tum'as Mes that comes from a person has nothing to do with whether the
Mes is fit to be eaten by a person or for a dog. No piece of a Mes is fit to
be eaten by a person. The laws of Tum'as Mes of a person apply even though,
by definition, the body parts are not fit for human consumption. Rather, the
Torah has decreed that these things are Metamei.
The question is only in the case of a Neveilah. Since a Neveilah is edible
flesh which indeed *is* normally eaten, the Amora'im argue whether the
Tum'ah of a Neveilah is dependent upon the Neveilah being an edible food. Is
it only when the Neveilah is still an edible food for a person that it is
Metamei, or is it sufficient that it be edible for a dog in order for it to
be Metamei? Either way, it is clear that the Neveilah must remain in the
category of food in order for it to be Metamei, in contrast to the Tum'ah
which comes from a human body.
The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, therefore, that teaches that a k'Zayis of
Netzel is Metamei is necessary even though human Netzel is edible for a dog.
Nevertheless, since it is not the original form of flesh, and the Torah only
says that flesh is Metamei, we might have thought that only what the Torah
discusses is Metamei (i.e. flesh) and it has nothing to do with whether or
not it is edible. Therefore, the k'Zayis of Netzel that is not in the same
form of flesh perhaps is not Metamei. The Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches
that Netzel *is* Metamei in the case of a person.
This Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai was said only with regard to a person and not
with regard to a Nochri, and the Gemara is clear about that point. The
question of the Gemara is whether Netzel of an animal can be considered the
same material as the Neveilah since it is still edible. According to the
opinion that says that decomposing flesh is still considered to be Neveilah
and can be Metamei as long as it is fit for a dog, since the Netzel is also
fit for a dog is it considered to be the same entity as the flesh of an
animal and is Metamei just like the flesh is Metamei? We would know that it
is Metamei from logical grounds, without a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Or is
Netzel a different from of decomposed flesh, and it is not the same form as
flesh of Neveilah, and therefore it should not be able to be Metamei as a
Neveilah? It might be edible like a Neveilah, but nevertheless it is not a
Neveilah. That is the question of the Gemara.
According to this understanding, it is clear why Netzel of an animal is not
Metamei according to the opinion that says that a Neveilah is Metamei only
while it is fit for a Nochri -- it cannot be considered the same as a
Neveilah since it is not edible for a Nochri. According to the opinion that
says that as long as it is edible for a dog it is Metamei, it is possible to
say that Netzel of an animal will also be Metamei, because it is edible for
a dog. This is what TOSFOS (DH Ad l'Ger) means when he says that even if we
say that an animal does have Netzel, it will not be Metamei according to the
opinion that says that Neveilah must be fit for a Nochri in order to be
Metamei. He means that even if we consider Netzel to be the same entity as
the flesh of an animal, and thus logically it should be Metamei just like
the flesh is Metamei, nevertheless since the flesh itself is not Metamei
when it is not edible for a Nochri, similarly Netzel -- which is not edible
for a Nochri -- is not Metamei.