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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 25, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 64

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讻诇 讛砖专抓 讛砖专抓 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜专抓 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 讛讗专抓 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜讚讗讬 诪讙注讜 讟诪讗 住驻拽 诪讙注讜 讟讛讜专

What is the reason of the first tanna for declaring that in all uncertain cases of floating impurity the person or item remains pure? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avudimi says: In the passage dealing with the impurity of creeping animals and the prohibition of eating them it is written: 鈥淲ith any swarming thing that swarms鈥 (Leviticus 11:43), indicating that a carcass of a creeping animal renders items impure in any place where it swarms. And it is written: 鈥淎ll swarming things that swarm upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:42), indicating that it transmits impurity only if it is on the earth. How so? How can one reconcile these two verses? Definite contact with it renders one impure; one who has uncertain contact with it, e.g., the impurity is floating, remains pure.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗讱 诪注讬谉 讜讻转讬讘 讬讟诪讗 (注讚 讛注专讘) 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪驻讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? Ulla said that as it is written: 鈥淣evertheless a fountain or a cistern in which there is a gathering of water shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 11:36), this indicates that a creeping animal found in one of these places does not impart impurity. And it is written in the same verse: 鈥淗e who touches their carcass shall be impure until evening,鈥 which indicates that it does render one impure. How so? If the impurity was floating in water contained in vessels, the item it touched is rendered impure, but if the water was in the ground itself, e.g., in a spring or pit, the item it touched is pure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讜讛谞讙专专讬谉 住驻讬拽谉 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻诪讜谞讞讬谉 讜讛谞讝专拽讬谉 住驻讬拽谉 讟讛讜专

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Teharot 3:13): All items that impart impurity that are carried by human hand or that are dragged along are not considered floating impurities, despite the fact that they are in motion. Rather, in a case where there is uncertainty whether a carried or dragged item affected a person, the individual is rendered impure, because the items are considered as though they were at rest. And in the case of items that are thrown by people, in uncertain cases that pertain to them, the individual remains pure.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讻讝讬转 讛诪转 讜讛诪讗讛讬诇 注诇 驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝讘 讜讝讘讛

This is the halakha, except for an olive-bulk from a corpse, which transmits impurity through uncertain contact even if it was thrown; and that which overlies impurity when thrown, i.e., an item that might have been positioned over a corpse when it was thrown; and anything that renders items above it impure like it renders those below it impure. To what does this last clause refer? It comes to include a zav and a zava, who render items placed above and below them impure even without contact. If something thrown or floating might have come into contact with a zav or zava, it is impure.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转 讘讻诇讬 讜讻诇讬 爪祝 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 诪讬转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

With regard to this halakha of a floating impurity, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If there is a corpse in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water, and one did not overlie it but might have touched it, what is the halakha? Do we go according to the floating vessel or do we go according to the corpse, which is resting on a solid surface?

讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪转 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗

If you say that we go according to the vessel and one is rendered ritually impure, the following question arises: If a corpse is placed on top of the carcass of a creeping animal, which is floating on water, what is the halakha? Do we say that since this impurity of a creeping animal is an impurity for an evening, i.e., it lasts one day, and this impurity imparted by a corpse is an impurity for seven days, it is considered as though the impurity imparted by a corpse were placed in a vessel, and he is impure? Or, perhaps the fact that both a corpse and a creeping animal impart impurity means that it is one solid impurity, and because the creeping animal is floating he is pure.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讜讚讗讬 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 爪驻讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讗讬谞讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讝讬转 讜讛讗讬 讻注讚砖讛

And if you say that due to their different levels of impurity it is considered as though the impurity were placed in a vessel and therefore one is definitely impure, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal is atop an unslaughtered animal carcass and the animal carcass is floating, then what is the halakha? Do we say that since they are both examples of an impurity for an evening, it is considered a single solid impurity, or perhaps here too they are different, as this one, the carcass, renders items impure when it is the amount of an olive-bulk, and this one, the creeping animal, does so when it is the amount of a lentil-bulk. In that case, the animal carcass and the creeping animal should be considered separate items, and it is as though the impurity is placed in a vessel, and he is impure.

砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 诪讛讜 讛谞讬 讜讚讗讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 诇讗

If in that case they are considered separate, then one can also ask: If a creeping animal is positioned atop another creeping animal, what is the halakha? Do we say that these certainly have the same measurement with regard to transmitting impurity, and that they consequently should be viewed as a single floating items, which means he is pure? Or, perhaps, since they are separate from each other and are not in fact a single item, they are not considered as one unit.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘诇讛 砖谞讬诪讜讞讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讬诪讜讞讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗

And if you say that in the case of a creeping animal atop a creeping animal, since they are separate from each other, it is considered as though the impurity were placed in a vessel and is not floating, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed atop an animal carcass that has dissolved, what is the halakha?Do we say that since it has dissolved it has become like liquid, and therefore it is as though the creeping animal were floating on liquid? Or, perhaps this carcass is still considered food, rather than a liquid, and the creeping animal is on a solid surface.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转注拽专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讻讬 讗讜讻诇讗 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜诪讬 讞讟讗转 爪驻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

And if you say that a dissolved animal carcasses is considered food, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed on top of semen, which is certainly liquid, what is the halakha? Is this creeping animal considered a floating impurity? And if you say that once semen is ejaculated from the body it is considered like food rather than drink, as it is viscous, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed atop waters of purification, i.e., the water into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed, which becomes highly viscous, and the waters of purification are floating on water, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: We do not know the answer to any of these questions, and therefore the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 砖讛诇讻讜 讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诇讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 诇诪讬住转专

Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering who walked by a grave in the depths, i.e., an unknown grave, on their seventh day of their purification, i.e., seven days after they were sprinkled with the purification waters after having contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, they are pure. If the nazirite shaved for his impurity and completed his naziriteship in purity or if the one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering sacrificed his offering, then when he eventually discovers the impurity, it is considered as though he were pure all along. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is because the ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is not strong enough to negate their actions, i.e., the nazirite offerings or the Paschal offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讬专讚 诇讬讟讛专 诪讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专

Rava raised an objection to this ruling from the statement of the mishna that if there is one whose impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is uncertain and he descended to purify himself from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, he is impure, as a person or item that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and one that has the presumptive status of purity remains pure. Here too, the nazirite and the one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering people had not completed their purification at the time, as the seventh day following their being sprinkled had not ended. As their presumptive status is impure, they are retroactively rendered impure, even by an impurity of the depths.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专 砖诪讞讜住专 转讙诇讞转

Rav Hamnuna said to Rava: I agree with you with regard to a nazirite who descended to purify himself and who is lacking the act of shaving. He has yet to shave his head for his impurity and is therefore not completely pure. Consequently, he follows his prior presumptive status of impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讚诇讗 诪讞讜住专 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪讞讜住专 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讬诪砖讗 诪诪讬诇讗 注专讘讗

Rava said to him: I, too, agree with you with regard to one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering that he is pure, as he is not lacking anything. Since he does not have to perform any action on his body before he can bring an offering, one can say that he already has a presumptive status of purity on the seventh day. Abaye said to him: But he is still lacking sunset, i.e., he is not fully pure until the sun sets on the seventh day. Rava said to Abaye: The sun sets by itself, and therefore this cannot be seen as a deficiency involving an action.

讜讗祝 讗讘讬讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara comments: And even Abaye accepted Rava鈥檚 answer and retracted, as can be seen from that which is taught in a baraita. By Torah law, a woman who gives birth to a boy is ritually impure for seven days, and a woman who gives birth to a girl is impure for fourteen days. At that point, the woman immerses in a ritual bath and is purified. Any blood that emerges from the woman during her days of purity, i.e., for forty days following the birth of a male and eighty days following the birth of a female, does not render her impure. She cannot bring the offering brought by a woman who has given birth or miscarried until she has immersed at the end of these days (see Leviticus, chapter 12). The baraita discusses a case where a woman who had given birth became pregnant and miscarried before she had brought her offering for the first birth.

讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转讘讬讗 转讜讱 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讘讬讗

The baraita teaches: If a woman miscarried on the day of the fulfillment of her purity, on the eighty-first day after a female, she must bring a separate offering for the miscarried fetus, as she was obligated to bring one offering before her miscarriage. If she miscarried during the fulfillment, i.e., before the conclusion of the eighty days for the birth of a daughter, she does not bring two offerings but only one, just as is the halakha in the case of one who gives birth to twins.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讘讬讗 注诇 诇讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬 诪诇讗转 讗讘诇 转讘讬讗 注诇 诇讬讚讛 砖诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讜转讬驻讟专 诪砖转讬讛谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that she should not bring an offering for her childbirth, i.e., miscarriage, that occurred before the fulfillment of the days of her purity but she should bring for her childbirth that occurred after its completion. In other words, if she had yet another miscarriage, after the days of her purity for her initial birth but within the eighty days of purity following her first miscarriage, she should bring an extra offering and thereby discharge both obligations, of her birth and her final miscarriage.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转讘讬讗 转讜讱 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讘讬讗

Therefore, to counteract this possibility, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purity are fulfilled鈥she shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). This teaches that it is only if she miscarried on the day of the fulfillment itself that she must bring an offering for a miscarriage, but if she miscarried before the fulfillment of the days of her purity of the earlier miscarriage, even if this occurred more than eighty days after the first birth, she does not bring another offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讞住专讗 拽专讘谉 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讞住专讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖

Rav Kahana said in explanation: Here it is different. The reason why she does not bring an offering for a miscarriage during her days of purity is that she lacks the possibility of bringing her offering. Since she cannot bring her offering until the end of her term of purity, she cannot incur another obligation during this period, no matter how many births occur within eighty days of the previous one. However, this leads Rav Kahana to ask: There too, if she had a miscarriage on the day of the completion of her term, she cannot bring her offering either, as she lacks sunset. Why, then, must she bring an additional offering?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖讬诪砖讗 诪诪讬诇讗 注专讘讗

Abaye said to Rav Kahana: The sun sets by itself and is not considered a deficiency with regard to her purity. This discussion shows that Abaye accepted Rava鈥檚 reasoning, as he submitted the same argument himself in a different context.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讜砖讻讘 讻讚专讻讜 谞讜讟诇讜 讜讗转 转驻讜住转讜

MISHNA: One who finds a corpse for the first time, i.e., he discovers a single corpse in a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, if the corpse is lying in the usual manner of Jewish burial, he removes it from there and also its surrounding earth. It is assumed that this corpse was buried there alone. There is no concern that this area is a cemetery and therefore the corpse may not be moved, nor does one take into account the possibility that another corpse may be buried in the vicinity.

砖谞讬诐 谞讜讟诇谉 讜讗转 转驻讜住转谉 诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 砖诪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转

Similarly, if he found two corpses, he removes them and their surrounding earth. In a case where he found three corpses, if there is a space between this corpse and that corpse of four to eight cubits, in a standard design, this is a graveyard. There is a concern that this might be an ancient cemetery.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 64

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讻诇 讛砖专抓 讛砖专抓 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜专抓 讜讻转讬讘 注诇 讛讗专抓 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜讚讗讬 诪讙注讜 讟诪讗 住驻拽 诪讙注讜 讟讛讜专

What is the reason of the first tanna for declaring that in all uncertain cases of floating impurity the person or item remains pure? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avudimi says: In the passage dealing with the impurity of creeping animals and the prohibition of eating them it is written: 鈥淲ith any swarming thing that swarms鈥 (Leviticus 11:43), indicating that a carcass of a creeping animal renders items impure in any place where it swarms. And it is written: 鈥淎ll swarming things that swarm upon the earth鈥 (Leviticus 11:42), indicating that it transmits impurity only if it is on the earth. How so? How can one reconcile these two verses? Definite contact with it renders one impure; one who has uncertain contact with it, e.g., the impurity is floating, remains pure.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗讱 诪注讬谉 讜讻转讬讘 讬讟诪讗 (注讚 讛注专讘) 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 爪驻讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion? Ulla said that as it is written: 鈥淣evertheless a fountain or a cistern in which there is a gathering of water shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 11:36), this indicates that a creeping animal found in one of these places does not impart impurity. And it is written in the same verse: 鈥淗e who touches their carcass shall be impure until evening,鈥 which indicates that it does render one impure. How so? If the impurity was floating in water contained in vessels, the item it touched is rendered impure, but if the water was in the ground itself, e.g., in a spring or pit, the item it touched is pure.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讜讛谞讙专专讬谉 住驻讬拽谉 讟诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻诪讜谞讞讬谉 讜讛谞讝专拽讬谉 住驻讬拽谉 讟讛讜专

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Teharot 3:13): All items that impart impurity that are carried by human hand or that are dragged along are not considered floating impurities, despite the fact that they are in motion. Rather, in a case where there is uncertainty whether a carried or dragged item affected a person, the individual is rendered impure, because the items are considered as though they were at rest. And in the case of items that are thrown by people, in uncertain cases that pertain to them, the individual remains pure.

讞讜抓 诪谉 讻讝讬转 讛诪转 讜讛诪讗讛讬诇 注诇 驻谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝讘 讜讝讘讛

This is the halakha, except for an olive-bulk from a corpse, which transmits impurity through uncertain contact even if it was thrown; and that which overlies impurity when thrown, i.e., an item that might have been positioned over a corpse when it was thrown; and anything that renders items above it impure like it renders those below it impure. To what does this last clause refer? It comes to include a zav and a zava, who render items placed above and below them impure even without contact. If something thrown or floating might have come into contact with a zav or zava, it is impure.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪转 讘讻诇讬 讜讻诇讬 爪祝 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 诪讬转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉

With regard to this halakha of a floating impurity, Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If there is a corpse in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water, and one did not overlie it but might have touched it, what is the halakha? Do we go according to the floating vessel or do we go according to the corpse, which is resting on a solid surface?

讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讘转专 讻诇讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪转 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讛讗讬 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗

If you say that we go according to the vessel and one is rendered ritually impure, the following question arises: If a corpse is placed on top of the carcass of a creeping animal, which is floating on water, what is the halakha? Do we say that since this impurity of a creeping animal is an impurity for an evening, i.e., it lasts one day, and this impurity imparted by a corpse is an impurity for seven days, it is considered as though the impurity imparted by a corpse were placed in a vessel, and he is impure? Or, perhaps the fact that both a corpse and a creeping animal impart impurity means that it is one solid impurity, and because the creeping animal is floating he is pure.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻诪讗谉 讚诪讞转讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬讗 讜讟诪讗 讜讚讗讬 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 爪驻讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讗讬谞讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讝讬转 讜讛讗讬 讻注讚砖讛

And if you say that due to their different levels of impurity it is considered as though the impurity were placed in a vessel and therefore one is definitely impure, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal is atop an unslaughtered animal carcass and the animal carcass is floating, then what is the halakha? Do we say that since they are both examples of an impurity for an evening, it is considered a single solid impurity, or perhaps here too they are different, as this one, the carcass, renders items impure when it is the amount of an olive-bulk, and this one, the creeping animal, does so when it is the amount of a lentil-bulk. In that case, the animal carcass and the creeping animal should be considered separate items, and it is as though the impurity is placed in a vessel, and he is impure.

砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 诪讛讜 讛谞讬 讜讚讗讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 诇讗

If in that case they are considered separate, then one can also ask: If a creeping animal is positioned atop another creeping animal, what is the halakha? Do we say that these certainly have the same measurement with regard to transmitting impurity, and that they consequently should be viewed as a single floating items, which means he is pure? Or, perhaps, since they are separate from each other and are not in fact a single item, they are not considered as one unit.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖专抓 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽讬 诪讛讚讚讬 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞讗 讘讻诇讬 讚诪讬 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讘诇讛 砖谞讬诪讜讞讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讬诪讜讞讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗

And if you say that in the case of a creeping animal atop a creeping animal, since they are separate from each other, it is considered as though the impurity were placed in a vessel and is not floating, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed atop an animal carcass that has dissolved, what is the halakha?Do we say that since it has dissolved it has become like liquid, and therefore it is as though the creeping animal were floating on liquid? Or, perhaps this carcass is still considered food, rather than a liquid, and the creeping animal is on a solid surface.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讚讗讜讻诇讗 讛讜讗 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讻讘转 讝专注 诪讛讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬转注拽专讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讻讬 讗讜讻诇讗 砖专抓 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜诪讬 讞讟讗转 爪驻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

And if you say that a dissolved animal carcasses is considered food, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed on top of semen, which is certainly liquid, what is the halakha? Is this creeping animal considered a floating impurity? And if you say that once semen is ejaculated from the body it is considered like food rather than drink, as it is viscous, one can raise an additional dilemma. If a creeping animal was placed atop waters of purification, i.e., the water into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed, which becomes highly viscous, and the waters of purification are floating on water, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: We do not know the answer to any of these questions, and therefore the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 谞讝讬专 讜注讜砖讛 驻住讞 砖讛诇讻讜 讘拽讘专 讛转讛讜诐 讘砖讘讬注讬 砖诇讛谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诇讬诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讛转讛讜诐 诇诪讬住转专

Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering who walked by a grave in the depths, i.e., an unknown grave, on their seventh day of their purification, i.e., seven days after they were sprinkled with the purification waters after having contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, they are pure. If the nazirite shaved for his impurity and completed his naziriteship in purity or if the one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering sacrificed his offering, then when he eventually discovers the impurity, it is considered as though he were pure all along. What is the reason for this lenient ruling? It is because the ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is not strong enough to negate their actions, i.e., the nazirite offerings or the Paschal offering.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讬专讚 诇讬讟讛专 诪讟讜诪讗转 讛诪转 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 砖讞讝拽转 讟讛讜专 讟讛讜专

Rava raised an objection to this ruling from the statement of the mishna that if there is one whose impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is uncertain and he descended to purify himself from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, he is impure, as a person or item that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and one that has the presumptive status of purity remains pure. Here too, the nazirite and the one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering people had not completed their purification at the time, as the seventh day following their being sprinkled had not ended. As their presumptive status is impure, they are retroactively rendered impure, even by an impurity of the depths.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘谞讝讬专 砖诪讞讜住专 转讙诇讞转

Rav Hamnuna said to Rava: I agree with you with regard to a nazirite who descended to purify himself and who is lacking the act of shaving. He has yet to shave his head for his impurity and is therefore not completely pure. Consequently, he follows his prior presumptive status of impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘注讜砖讛 驻住讞 讚诇讗 诪讞讜住专 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪讞讜住专 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讬诪砖讗 诪诪讬诇讗 注专讘讗

Rava said to him: I, too, agree with you with regard to one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering that he is pure, as he is not lacking anything. Since he does not have to perform any action on his body before he can bring an offering, one can say that he already has a presumptive status of purity on the seventh day. Abaye said to him: But he is still lacking sunset, i.e., he is not fully pure until the sun sets on the seventh day. Rava said to Abaye: The sun sets by itself, and therefore this cannot be seen as a deficiency involving an action.

讜讗祝 讗讘讬讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗

The Gemara comments: And even Abaye accepted Rava鈥檚 answer and retracted, as can be seen from that which is taught in a baraita. By Torah law, a woman who gives birth to a boy is ritually impure for seven days, and a woman who gives birth to a girl is impure for fourteen days. At that point, the woman immerses in a ritual bath and is purified. Any blood that emerges from the woman during her days of purity, i.e., for forty days following the birth of a male and eighty days following the birth of a female, does not render her impure. She cannot bring the offering brought by a woman who has given birth or miscarried until she has immersed at the end of these days (see Leviticus, chapter 12). The baraita discusses a case where a woman who had given birth became pregnant and miscarried before she had brought her offering for the first birth.

讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转讘讬讗 转讜讱 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讘讬讗

The baraita teaches: If a woman miscarried on the day of the fulfillment of her purity, on the eighty-first day after a female, she must bring a separate offering for the miscarried fetus, as she was obligated to bring one offering before her miscarriage. If she miscarried during the fulfillment, i.e., before the conclusion of the eighty days for the birth of a daughter, she does not bring two offerings but only one, just as is the halakha in the case of one who gives birth to twins.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讘讬讗 注诇 诇讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬 诪诇讗转 讗讘诇 转讘讬讗 注诇 诇讬讚讛 砖诇讗讞专 诪诇讗转 讜转讬驻讟专 诪砖转讬讛谉

The baraita continues: One might have thought that she should not bring an offering for her childbirth, i.e., miscarriage, that occurred before the fulfillment of the days of her purity but she should bring for her childbirth that occurred after its completion. In other words, if she had yet another miscarriage, after the days of her purity for her initial birth but within the eighty days of purity following her first miscarriage, she should bring an extra offering and thereby discharge both obligations, of her birth and her final miscarriage.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘诪诇讗转 讬诪讬 讟讛专讛 讘讬讜诐 诪诇讗转 转讘讬讗 转讜讱 诪诇讗转 诇讗 转讘讬讗

Therefore, to counteract this possibility, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when the days of her purity are fulfilled鈥she shall bring鈥 (Leviticus 12:6). This teaches that it is only if she miscarried on the day of the fulfillment itself that she must bring an offering for a miscarriage, but if she miscarried before the fulfillment of the days of her purity of the earlier miscarriage, even if this occurred more than eighty days after the first birth, she does not bring another offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讞住专讗 拽专讘谉 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讞住专讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖

Rav Kahana said in explanation: Here it is different. The reason why she does not bring an offering for a miscarriage during her days of purity is that she lacks the possibility of bringing her offering. Since she cannot bring her offering until the end of her term of purity, she cannot incur another obligation during this period, no matter how many births occur within eighty days of the previous one. However, this leads Rav Kahana to ask: There too, if she had a miscarriage on the day of the completion of her term, she cannot bring her offering either, as she lacks sunset. Why, then, must she bring an additional offering?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖讬诪砖讗 诪诪讬诇讗 注专讘讗

Abaye said to Rav Kahana: The sun sets by itself and is not considered a deficiency with regard to her purity. This discussion shows that Abaye accepted Rava鈥檚 reasoning, as he submitted the same argument himself in a different context.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讜砖讻讘 讻讚专讻讜 谞讜讟诇讜 讜讗转 转驻讜住转讜

MISHNA: One who finds a corpse for the first time, i.e., he discovers a single corpse in a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, if the corpse is lying in the usual manner of Jewish burial, he removes it from there and also its surrounding earth. It is assumed that this corpse was buried there alone. There is no concern that this area is a cemetery and therefore the corpse may not be moved, nor does one take into account the possibility that another corpse may be buried in the vicinity.

砖谞讬诐 谞讜讟诇谉 讜讗转 转驻讜住转谉 诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 砖诪讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转

Similarly, if he found two corpses, he removes them and their surrounding earth. In a case where he found three corpses, if there is a space between this corpse and that corpse of four to eight cubits, in a standard design, this is a graveyard. There is a concern that this might be an ancient cemetery.

Scroll To Top