Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 27, 2023 | 讛壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 63

If a nazir finds out after shaving that he had become impure before, the earlier days are canceled and the nezirut must be redone, but only if the impurity was known. However, if it was tumat tehom, then nothing is canceled. Tumat tehom is if one went to a mikveh in a cave and there was a dead body that sunk to the bottom and could not be seen. If one went into the mikveh to cool off and did not see the body, one would not be considered impure. But if one used it as a mikveh, it would not be effective as the person’s presumptive status stays the same – if one was impure, they remain impure. What is the source for tumat tehom? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar bring verses, but after raising two questions, one on Rabbi Elazar and another on both, they conclude that it is a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. The Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that shaving the hair is necessary for finishing nezirut, as that is the determining factor for tumat tehom. Rami bar Hama asked: If one became impure during their nazirite term, but only found out after the term ended, before they shaved, does it cancel thirty days, as it goes by the day they became impure, or does it only cancel seven? After some back-and-forth answers and difficulties, they derive the answer from the Mishna. In Tosefta Zavim 2:5, they define what are cases of tumat tehom.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 住讜转专 讜讗诐 讟讜诪讗转 转讛讜诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专


MISHNA: With regard to a nazirite who shaved for the conclusion of his naziriteship, and it later became known to him that during his naziriteship he was ritually impure from a corpse, if it was a known impurity, i.e., people were aware of the impurity when he became impure, he negates his entire naziriteship. And if it was ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths, one that was unknown at the time, he does not negate his naziriteship. If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship in either case.


讻讬爪讚 讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讘诪注专讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪转 爪祝 注诇 驻讬 讛诪注专讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 诪砖讜拽注 讘拽专拽注 讛诪注专讛


The mishna asks: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure, as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse was found sunk into the ground of the cave in such a manner that it was unknown.


讬专讚 诇讛拽专 讟讛讜专 诇讬讟讛专 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讜讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专:


However, even here the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. If one descended not to immerse himself in the water, as he was ritually pure, but to cool himself, he remains pure. If he was impure and entered the water to purify himself from the impurity from a corpse, he is impure. The reason is that something that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and something that has the presumptive status of purity is pure, as there is a basis for the matter. It is reasonable that items or people retain their presumptive status.


讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讘驻转注 驻转讗诐 注诇讬讜 讘诪讞讜讜专转 诇讜


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that there is a difference between known and unknown impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎nd if any man shall die very suddenly beside him鈥 (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the term 鈥渂eside him鈥 indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞拽讛 讻讬 讚专讱 诪讛 讚专讱 讘讙诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 讘讙诇讜讬


Reish Lakish said a different source: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎ny man of you who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away鈥 (Numbers 9:10). The word 鈥渞oad鈥 is juxtaposed in the verse to the term 鈥渞itually impure,鈥 indicating that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, every impurity is in the open. It must be a known impurity.


讜讗诇讗 讛讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The Gemara objects: But consider that which we learned in the Tosefta (Zavim 2:9): Which is the ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. This type of impurity is permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal offering. However, if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讚专讱 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讜讜专转 诇讜 讻讬 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara states its question: Granted, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the verse that states that ritual impurity is like a road, it is fine, as an item known to someone in the world can be compared to a road. However, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the term 鈥渂eside him,鈥 i.e., it is referring to an impurity that is clear to him, if one person at the other end of the earth is aware of this impurity, what of it? It was unknown to the nazirite himself.


讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜砖讻讘 诇专讞讘讛 砖诇 讚专讱 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讘注砖讬讬转 驻住讞 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛:


And furthermore, consider that which is taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, i.e., it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible for the passerby to avoid becoming impure by passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both being a nazirite and being one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure. What is different about these situations? Rather, it must be that the halakha of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is learned as a tradition and not from the verses, which are cited merely in support.


讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转


搂 The mishna taught that if a nazirite discovered he was ritually impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship even if he was rendered impure by impurity of the depths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this opinion? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who says that shaving is indispensable to the completion of one鈥檚 naziriteship. Consequently, if he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he became impure during his naziriteship, and he negates the period he has observed.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞讟诪讗 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 诪讛讜 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讬讚讬注讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讛讬讗 讗讜 诇讗 讜诇诪讗讬 诇诪讬住转专


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who became impure during the full term of the regular days of his naziriteship but his impurity became known to him only after the full term but before he shaved? Perhaps we go according to his knowledge, and it is a case of knowledge after the full term, or perhaps the halakha is not determined by the time of his awareness but by the actual time of the impurity, which occurred during his naziriteship. The Gemara adds: And with regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? It was with regard to his possible negation of the period he observed as a nazirite: Does he negate his naziriteship, or is he considered to have contracted impurity after the completion of his term, in which case he need not start his naziriteship afresh?


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates the days of his naziriteship in either case. The Gemara seeks to clarify this: What are the circumstances of this case? When exactly did he find out about the impurity? If it became known to him during the full term of his naziriteship, need this be said, that he negates the previous days? After all, he has yet to complete his naziriteship vow. Rather, is it not referring to a case when the impurity was discovered after the full term of his naziriteship? Conclude from the mishna that he negates the days of his naziriteship even if he discovered the impurity after the completion of his term.


讜注讚讬讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讜诇讜 住讜转专 讗讜 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讜诇讜 住讜转专 讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专


The Gemara continues to analyze the aforementioned case. And you can still raise the dilemma: Does he negate the entire period of his naziriteship or does he negate just seven days? The Gemara asks: According to whom is this dilemma raised? If we say this dilemma is referring to the opinion of the Rabbis (see 16b), it is obvious that he negates it all, as they maintain that even a nazirite who becomes impure after the completion of his naziriteship must observe another thirty days. And if it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, his ruling with regard to any impurity after the full term of his term is that one negates only seven days.


讗诪专 诇讱 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 谞讟诪讗 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讜讛讗讬 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讗转 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讬讚讬注讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讛讬讗


The Gemara responds: The one who raised this dilemma could have said to you: This statement of Rabbi Eliezer that a nazirite negates a mere seven days applies only if he became impure after the full term of his naziriteship, but this one became impure before the end of the full term, and therefore he negates the entire period. Or perhaps it is different here, as it is a case of knowledge that came to light after the full term of his naziriteship.


讜诪讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专 讜诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara answers: And one can resolve the dilemma from this mishna itself. The mishna teaches that if the nazirite discovered he was impure before he shaved he negates his naziriteship in either case. And it does not distinguish between cases where this happened before the end of the full term or after it. This indicates that in any case he negates only seven days.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇专讞讘讛 砖诇 讚专讱 诇转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗 讜讘谞讝讬专 讜讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讟讛讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专


The Sages taught (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, with regard to teruma the passerby is impure. But with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure, as it is considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. In what case is this statement said, that one is impure with regard to partaking of teruma? It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse.


讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专


But if he has space to pass by, then even with regard to teruma he is pure. This is because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure, and there is a principle that if an uncertainty arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or item in the public domain, the person or item is considered pure.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪爪讗讜 砖诇诐 讗讘诇 诪砖讜讘专 讗讜 诪驻讜专拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘讬谉 驻专拽讬谉 注讘专 讜讘拽讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜讘专 讜诪驻讜专拽 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讘专 诪爪专驻讜


Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the corpse whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered he is pure, even if there is no space to pass by. The reason is that we suspect that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. This applies when he finds the corpse out in the open. But if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure. This is because the grave joins the parts into one unit and renders him impure if he passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讛诇讱 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讟注讜谉 讗讜 专讻讜讘 讟诪讗 诇驻讬 砖诪讛诇讱 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗驻砖专 诇讜 砖诇讗 讬讙注 讜砖诇讗 讬住讬讟 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讛讬诇 讟注讜谉 讗讜 专讻讜讘 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬讙注 讜砖诇讗 讬住讬讟 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讛讬诇


The baraita adds: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot. However, if he was loaded with a heavy burden or was riding an animal, he is impure. This is because in the case of one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it, whereas in the case of one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line, or one riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 砖诇砖转谉 讟诪讗讬诐


In what case is this statement said, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal offering are considered pure? It is said with regard to impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if the source of impurity was known to others but not to the individual who became impure, all three of them, i.e., a nazirite, one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, and the one who wishes to partake of teruma, are impure.


讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered to impart impurity of the depths? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. But if even one individual is aware of it, even if that person is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.


讛讬讛 讟诪讜谉 讘转讘谉 讗讜 讘爪专讜专讜转 讛专讬 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘讗驻讬诇讛 讜讘谞拽讬拽讬 讛住诇注讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The baraita continues: To ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If the body was concealed in hay or in pebbles, so the person might have died in an avalanche, it is likely that the corpse had never been found; this is impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if it was found in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it.


讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚:


The baraita concludes: And the Sages said that the leniency of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths applies only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of impurity.


讻讬爪讚 讬专讚: 爪驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖专抓 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛 讘讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讛 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讛


搂 The mishna taught: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure. The Gemara comments: A floating impurity does not render a person or item impure in the case of a carcass of a creeping animal. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 5:6): With regard to the case of uncertain impurity, where an item might have touched something impure that was floating, either in water in a vessel or in water in the ground, e.g., a well, the item is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: If the impurity was floating in water that was in a vessel, the item is impure; if the impurity was in water in the ground, it is pure.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 58-66 + SIYUM – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a Nazir who is uncertain if he came in contact with impurity and if...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 63: The Matter Has Legs

A Nazir who has reached the point of shaving, and then encounters impurity - depending on the kind of impurity,...

Nazir 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 63

诪转谞讬壮 谞讝讬专 砖讙讬诇讞 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讗诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 住讜转专 讜讗诐 讟讜诪讗转 转讛讜诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专


MISHNA: With regard to a nazirite who shaved for the conclusion of his naziriteship, and it later became known to him that during his naziriteship he was ritually impure from a corpse, if it was a known impurity, i.e., people were aware of the impurity when he became impure, he negates his entire naziriteship. And if it was ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths, one that was unknown at the time, he does not negate his naziriteship. If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship in either case.


讻讬爪讚 讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 讘诪注专讛 讜谞诪爪讗 诪转 爪祝 注诇 驻讬 讛诪注专讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 诪砖讜拽注 讘拽专拽注 讛诪注专讛


The mishna asks: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure, as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse was found sunk into the ground of the cave in such a manner that it was unknown.


讬专讚 诇讛拽专 讟讛讜专 诇讬讟讛专 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 讜讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专:


However, even here the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. If one descended not to immerse himself in the water, as he was ritually pure, but to cool himself, he remains pure. If he was impure and entered the water to purify himself from the impurity from a corpse, he is impure. The reason is that something that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and something that has the presumptive status of purity is pure, as there is a basis for the matter. It is reasonable that items or people retain their presumptive status.


讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 讬诪讜转 诪转 注诇讬讜 讘驻转注 驻转讗诐 注诇讬讜 讘诪讞讜讜专转 诇讜


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that there is a difference between known and unknown impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎nd if any man shall die very suddenly beside him鈥 (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the term 鈥渂eside him鈥 indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.


专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讟诪讗 诇谞驻砖 讗讜 讘讚专讱 专讞拽讛 讻讬 讚专讱 诪讛 讚专讱 讘讙诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 讘讙诇讜讬


Reish Lakish said a different source: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎ny man of you who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away鈥 (Numbers 9:10). The word 鈥渞oad鈥 is juxtaposed in the verse to the term 鈥渞itually impure,鈥 indicating that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, every impurity is in the open. It must be a known impurity.


讜讗诇讗 讛讚转谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The Gemara objects: But consider that which we learned in the Tosefta (Zavim 2:9): Which is the ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. This type of impurity is permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal offering. However, if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讚专讱 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讜讜专转 诇讜 讻讬 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara states its question: Granted, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the verse that states that ritual impurity is like a road, it is fine, as an item known to someone in the world can be compared to a road. However, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the term 鈥渂eside him,鈥 i.e., it is referring to an impurity that is clear to him, if one person at the other end of the earth is aware of this impurity, what of it? It was unknown to the nazirite himself.


讜转讜 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜砖讻讘 诇专讞讘讛 砖诇 讚专讱 讘转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜讘注砖讬讬转 驻住讞 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛:


And furthermore, consider that which is taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, i.e., it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible for the passerby to avoid becoming impure by passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both being a nazirite and being one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure. What is different about these situations? Rather, it must be that the halakha of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is learned as a tradition and not from the verses, which are cited merely in support.


讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讙诇讞转 诪注讻讘转


搂 The mishna taught that if a nazirite discovered he was ritually impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship even if he was rendered impure by impurity of the depths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this opinion? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who says that shaving is indispensable to the completion of one鈥檚 naziriteship. Consequently, if he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he became impure during his naziriteship, and he negates the period he has observed.


讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞讟诪讗 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 诪讛讜 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讬讚讬注讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讛讬讗 讗讜 诇讗 讜诇诪讗讬 诇诪讬住转专


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who became impure during the full term of the regular days of his naziriteship but his impurity became known to him only after the full term but before he shaved? Perhaps we go according to his knowledge, and it is a case of knowledge after the full term, or perhaps the halakha is not determined by the time of his awareness but by the actual time of the impurity, which occurred during his naziriteship. The Gemara adds: And with regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? It was with regard to his possible negation of the period he observed as a nazirite: Does he negate his naziriteship, or is he considered to have contracted impurity after the completion of his term, in which case he need not start his naziriteship afresh?


讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 讙讬诇讞 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates the days of his naziriteship in either case. The Gemara seeks to clarify this: What are the circumstances of this case? When exactly did he find out about the impurity? If it became known to him during the full term of his naziriteship, need this be said, that he negates the previous days? After all, he has yet to complete his naziriteship vow. Rather, is it not referring to a case when the impurity was discovered after the full term of his naziriteship? Conclude from the mishna that he negates the days of his naziriteship even if he discovered the impurity after the completion of his term.


讜注讚讬讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讜诇讜 住讜转专 讗讜 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讜诇讜 住讜转专 讜讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专


The Gemara continues to analyze the aforementioned case. And you can still raise the dilemma: Does he negate the entire period of his naziriteship or does he negate just seven days? The Gemara asks: According to whom is this dilemma raised? If we say this dilemma is referring to the opinion of the Rabbis (see 16b), it is obvious that he negates it all, as they maintain that even a nazirite who becomes impure after the completion of his naziriteship must observe another thirty days. And if it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, his ruling with regard to any impurity after the full term of his term is that one negates only seven days.


讗诪专 诇讱 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 谞讟诪讗 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讜讛讗讬 诇驻谞讬 诪诇讗转 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讬讚讬注讛 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讛讬讗


The Gemara responds: The one who raised this dilemma could have said to you: This statement of Rabbi Eliezer that a nazirite negates a mere seven days applies only if he became impure after the full term of his naziriteship, but this one became impure before the end of the full term, and therefore he negates the entire period. Or perhaps it is different here, as it is a case of knowledge that came to light after the full term of his naziriteship.


讜诪讬谞讛 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 住讜转专 讜诇讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara answers: And one can resolve the dilemma from this mishna itself. The mishna teaches that if the nazirite discovered he was impure before he shaved he negates his naziriteship in either case. And it does not distinguish between cases where this happened before the end of the full term or after it. This indicates that in any case he negates only seven days.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜讟诇 诇专讞讘讛 砖诇 讚专讱 诇转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗 讜讘谞讝讬专 讜讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讟讛讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专


The Sages taught (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, with regard to teruma the passerby is impure. But with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure, as it is considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. In what case is this statement said, that one is impure with regard to partaking of teruma? It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse.


讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专


But if he has space to pass by, then even with regard to teruma he is pure. This is because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure, and there is a principle that if an uncertainty arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or item in the public domain, the person or item is considered pure.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诪爪讗讜 砖诇诐 讗讘诇 诪砖讜讘专 讗讜 诪驻讜专拽 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讜诐 诇注讘讜专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘讬谉 驻专拽讬谉 注讘专 讜讘拽讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜讘专 讜诪驻讜专拽 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讘专 诪爪专驻讜


Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the corpse whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered he is pure, even if there is no space to pass by. The reason is that we suspect that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. This applies when he finds the corpse out in the open. But if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure. This is because the grave joins the parts into one unit and renders him impure if he passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讛诇讱 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讟注讜谉 讗讜 专讻讜讘 讟诪讗 诇驻讬 砖诪讛诇讱 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗驻砖专 诇讜 砖诇讗 讬讙注 讜砖诇讗 讬住讬讟 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讛讬诇 讟注讜谉 讗讜 专讻讜讘 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬讙注 讜砖诇讗 讬住讬讟 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讛讬诇


The baraita adds: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot. However, if he was loaded with a heavy burden or was riding an animal, he is impure. This is because in the case of one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it, whereas in the case of one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line, or one riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讬讚讜注讛 砖诇砖转谉 讟诪讗讬诐


In what case is this statement said, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal offering are considered pure? It is said with regard to impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if the source of impurity was known to others but not to the individual who became impure, all three of them, i.e., a nazirite, one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, and the one who wishes to partake of teruma, are impure.


讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 诪讻讬专讛 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered to impart impurity of the depths? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. But if even one individual is aware of it, even if that person is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.


讛讬讛 讟诪讜谉 讘转讘谉 讗讜 讘爪专讜专讜转 讛专讬 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讘讬诪讬诐 讜讘讗驻讬诇讛 讜讘谞拽讬拽讬 讛住诇注讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐


The baraita continues: To ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If the body was concealed in hay or in pebbles, so the person might have died in an avalanche, it is likely that the corpse had never been found; this is impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if it was found in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it.


讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 讗诇讗 诇诪转 讘诇讘讚:


The baraita concludes: And the Sages said that the leniency of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths applies only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of impurity.


讻讬爪讚 讬专讚: 爪驻讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖专抓 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 爪驻讛 讘讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讛 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讛


搂 The mishna taught: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure. The Gemara comments: A floating impurity does not render a person or item impure in the case of a carcass of a creeping animal. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 5:6): With regard to the case of uncertain impurity, where an item might have touched something impure that was floating, either in water in a vessel or in water in the ground, e.g., a well, the item is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: If the impurity was floating in water that was in a vessel, the item is impure; if the impurity was in water in the ground, it is pure.


Scroll To Top