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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 26, 2015 | 讬状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 65

讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 诪爪讗 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞讬诇讛 诪爪讗讜 谞讜讟诇讜 讜讗转 转驻讜住转讜

One must therefore examine from that spot outward for twenty cubits. If one finds another corpse at the end of twenty cubits, he examines from that spot outward twenty cubits, as there is a basis for anticipating the matter. It is likely that he has stumbled upon an ancient gravesite. He is not permitted to relocate the corpses, despite the fact that if he had found the single corpse by itself at first he could have removed it and its surrounding earth.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 诪转 驻专讟 诇讛专讜讙 诪讜砖讻讘 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘 讻讚专讻讜 驻专讟 诇砖专讗砖讜 诪讜谞讞 讘讬谉 讬专讻讜转讬讜

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said the following inferences from the mishna: The phrase: He found, excludes a corpse that already had been found. If it was known that there was one corpse buried in a certain place, the discovery of two previously unknown corpses does not raise the concern that perhaps it is a forgotten graveyard. Similarly, the term corpse [met] excludes a killed [harug] person. Even if there were three corpses found, if there are signs that these people were killed, the area is not assumed to be a graveyard, as they may have been buried where they were found killed. Likewise, the term lying excludes a sitting person, as Jews were not generally buried in a seated position. The phrase: In the usual manner, excludes one whose head was placed between his thighs, as that is not the way Jews are buried.

转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转 砖讞住专 讗讬谉 诇讜 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讙讜讬 讛讜讗

Ulla bar 岣nina taught a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 16:2): A corpse that is lacking a part of his body indispensable to life has no halakha of surrounding earth, i.e., there is no need to remove the nearby earth along with the corpse. Nor does it have the halakha of a graveyard, i.e., it does not join with two other corpses to establish this site as a cemetery. The Gemara asks: And with regard to all these listed above, i.e., a corpse that was buried in a sitting position or with its head between its thighs, what is the reason that they are not considered part of a graveyard? The Gemara answers: We say that perhaps the deceased was a gentile, as Jews are not usually buried in these ways.

诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讛讗讞讚 讬讚讜注 讜砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇讛 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讬讚讜注讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 转驻讜住讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转

The baraita further states: If one found two corpses, with the head of this one by the feet of that one and the head of that one by the feet of this one, they do not have the halakha of surrounding earth, nor do they have the halakha of a graveyard. This is not the way Jews are buried, as corpses in a Jewish cemetery always face the same direction. If one found three corpses, one of which was previously known, while the other two were found for the first time now, or if one found two for the first time and two that were known, they do not have the halakha of surrounding earth, and they also do not have the halakha of a graveyard. One does not view these corpses as connected.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 砖讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 讬讚讜注讬谉 讜讗讞讚 转讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转谉 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 砖讬讙注转 诇专讬拽 讬讙注转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诇讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讬讚讜注讬谉 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 转讞讬诇讛

The baraita relates: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Yeshevav, who examined and found two known corpses and one corpse discovered for the first time, and he wished to deem the three corpses a graveyard. Rabbi Akiva said to him: All your toil is in vain. They said it is a graveyard only in a case of three known corpses buried in one spot or three corpses found for the first time. However, if some were known and others were discovered for the first time, one does not combine them.

谞讜讟诇谉 讜讗转 转驻讜住转谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 转驻讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗转谞讬 诪诪爪专讬诐 讟讜诇 注诪讬

搂 The mishna taught that he removes them and their surrounding earth. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of surrounding earth? Rav Yehuda said: The verse states with regard to Jacob鈥檚 instruction to Joseph to transfer his remains to Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淵ou shall carry me out from Egypt鈥 (Genesis 47:30), which indicates: Take some earth out from Egypt with me, i.e., take the earth that is near the corpse.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽) 谞讜讟诇 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讜讞讜驻专 讘讘转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

The Gemara further asks: And what is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: One takes loose dirt from near the corpse, as it is assumed it has been loosened by the blood and moisture from the corpse, and digs virgin, uncultivated, ground to a depth of three fingerbreadths, in case this earth has absorbed the blood.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛拽讬住诪讬谉 讜讗转 讛拽住住讜转

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a different baraita: And what is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: One takes wood chips found nearby, which might have been part of the coffin, and lumps of earth that might have absorbed the blood and moisture from a corpse.

讜讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讜讜讚讗讬谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛住驻讬拽讜转 讜讛砖讗专 诪爪讟专祝 诇专讜讘 讘谞讬谞讜 砖诇 诪转 讜诇专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诇诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘

And he discards that which is certainly not from the corpse, e.g., stones. And he sets aside the items with regard to which it is uncertain if they have a connection with the corpse. And the rest, i.e., anything that is apparently from the corpse, combine to reach the amount of the majority of the structure of a corpse, or of a quarter-kav of bones, or of a full ladle of dust from a corpse. The remains of a corpse impart ritual impurity in a tent only if they meet one of those three qualifications. Anything which is apparently the remains of the corpse is considered dust of a corpse with regard to this halakha. In any event, it is clear that this baraita presents a different definition of surrounding earth.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘谉 注讝讗讬 谞讜讟诇 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讜讞讜驻专 讘讘转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

The Gemara answers: With regard to the first statement of Rabbi Elazar, it was he who said in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, ben Azzai, as it is taught in a baraita: And how much is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of ben Azzai: One takes loose earth and digs virgin ground to a depth of three fingerbreadths.

讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜

搂 The mishna taught that one must examine the ground for up to twenty cubits from that spot where a corpse was found.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讚拽 讜驻谞讛 讘讚拽 讜驻谞讛 讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 诇讗 讛讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 讛谞讱 转专讬 讜诇讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讞讚

Rava said: With regard to one who examined, found a corpse, and removed it from its place, and again examined nearby, found another corpse, and removed it from its place as well, if he examined yet again and discovered a third corpse, he does not move this third one alongside these two he has already moved, as he now knows that this was a graveyard and the corpses were buried there intentionally. And he does not return these two alongside this one either, as he is not obligated to restore the corpses to their prior locations after they have been reburied.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇驻谞讜转 诪驻谞讛 诇讛讜谉 讜诇讬砖讜讬谞讛讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讬讛专讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

There are those who say that Rava said: Since permission was granted to move the first and second corpses, one may therefore move them all, including the third one. The Gemara asks: And let us deem them part of a graveyard. Since three corpses were found buried together, there might be others in the vicinity. Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Since at that point there was just one corpse, the Sages were lenient and were not concerned about any further impurity. The Sages wished to avoid uncertain impurity because people were careful to observe the halakhot of ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and additional cases of uncertain impurity would be complicated to observe.

讘讚拽 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讬讛专讜 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks another question: If one examined twenty cubits from the location of those corpses and did not find anything, what is the halakha? Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says that Rav says: This is a graveyard. Those three corpses compose the graveyard and there is no concern for others. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Why is there no concern that there might be many more corpses in the surrounding area? Once again Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Eretz Yisrael is deemed pure in a case of uncertainty.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 住驻拽 谞讙注讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽讜 讟诪讗

MISHNA: Any case of uncertainty with regard to leprous sores is initially deemed pure until it is established that it is a case of ritual impurity. Once it has been determined to be a case of impurity, uncertainty concerning it is deemed impure.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 [讘讜] 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛专讛 转讞讬诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the plague of leprosy鈥to pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59). Since the verse opened with purity first, this teaches that any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure. The Gemara asks: If so, if the halakha is based on this verse, then even once it has been determined to be a case of impurity, uncertainty concerning it should be deemed pure as well, as this interpretation of the verse should apply to all cases of uncertainty with regard to leprosy.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 讘讛专转 拽讚诪讛 诇砖注专 诇讘谉 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 砖注专 诇讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘讛专转 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻讬讛讛

Rather, when this statement, that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, was stated, it was stated with regard to the following dispute in a mishna concerning an uncertain leprous sore (Nega鈥檌m 4:11): If the snow-white leprous sore [baheret], which is one sign of leprosy, preceded the white hair, which is another sign, he is impure. This halakha is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:3). And if the white hair preceded the baheret he is pure, as this is not considered a sign of impurity. If there is uncertainty as to which came first, he is impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua said: Keiha.

诪讗讬 讻讬讛讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讛讛 讜讟讛讜专 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讛讛 讜讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛专讛 转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of keiha? Rav Yehuda said: Rabbi Yehoshua pronounced the matter unsolvable and ruled it is pure. The Gemara further asks: And perhaps this means that he pronounced the matter unsolvable and ruled it is impure? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淭o pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59); since the verse opened with purity first, any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure.

诪转谞讬壮 讘砖讘注讛 讚专讻讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝拽拽 诇讝讬讘讛 讘诪讗讻诇 讜讘诪砖转讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讘拽驻讬爪讛 讜讘讞讜诇讬 讜讘诪专讗讛 讜讘讛讬专讛讜专

MISHNA: This mishna discusses another case that includes the statement: There is a basis to anticipate the matter. One examines a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] in seven ways, as long as he has not been confirmed as having a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva.] With regard to an individual鈥檚 second such discharge, before he has been established as a greater zav, one examines to see whether there may have been a particular trigger of his discharge. One examines him with regard to food and with regard to drink, in case the discharge might have been the result of overeating or excess drinking; with regard to a burden, as it might have been caused by the weight of a heavy burden; and with regard to jumping, in case he jumped and this led to the discharge; and with regard to sickness; and with regard to an arousing sight; and with regard to the thought of a woman.

诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讝讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜谞住讜 讜住驻讬拽讜 讜砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 讟诪讗讬诐 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

Once he has been confirmed as having a ziva, after two definite discharges of ziva, one no longer examines him in this way, as any discharge is deemed impure. If one experiences three discharges of ziva, he is obligated to bring an offering following his purification. Accordingly, his discharge that was due to circumstances beyond his control, i.e., for one of the seven reasons listed above, and his discharge about which it is uncertain if it is ziva, and even his semen, which is not usually considered the discharge of a zav, are all impure. Why is this so? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Once he has the status of a zav, it can be assumed that subsequent discharges are of ziva as well.

讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

The Sages similarly taught: With regard to one who strikes another with heavy blows, and doctors assessed that he would die as a result of the beating, but his health improved from what it was, so that they then determined that he would not die from his injuries, and afterward his condition worsened and he died, the one who struck him is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, as it is assumed that the victim鈥檚 death was caused by the assault. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: He is exempt, because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Since the victim began to recover during his illness, it is reasonable to assume that his death was caused by a factor other than the assault.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇专讗讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬转拽砖 诇谞拽讬讘讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that one examines a zav before he has been confirmed as having a ziva, but not after? Rabbi Natan says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the zav who has an issue [zav et zovo], whether it is a man or a woman鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). This teaches that after two discharges, corresponding to the words zav and zovo, with regard to the third sighting, when one is already a zav, the verse juxtaposes the halakha of a male to that of a female: Just as it makes no difference in the case of a female whether her discharge of menstrual blood was triggered by an external factor, as she is ritually impure regardless, once a male zav has the status of impurity, one no longer examines him to see if his discharge was triggered by an external factor.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘讗转讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 讗转讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗转讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Zavim 2:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: For the third discharge one still examines him; for the fourth discharge one does not examine him. Where does the verse allude to the fourth discharge? The Gemara answers: Rather, they disagree with regard to instances of the word et,鈥 i.e., whether or not the word 鈥et鈥 teaches an additional halakha, or whether it is written purely for syntactical reasons. Rabbi Eliezer expounds instances of the word et,鈥 and therefore he counts the phrase 鈥zav et zovo鈥 as three words referring to three discharges. And the Rabbis do not expound instances of the word et,鈥 which means that in their opinion this verse alludes to only two discharges.

讗讜谞住讜 讜住驻讬拽讜

搂 The mishna taught that his discharge that was due to circumstances beyond his control, and his discharge about which it is uncertain if it is ziva, are considered impure.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 65

讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 诪爪讗 讗讞讚 讘住讜祝 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诇讛诇谉 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞讬诇讛 诪爪讗讜 谞讜讟诇讜 讜讗转 转驻讜住转讜

One must therefore examine from that spot outward for twenty cubits. If one finds another corpse at the end of twenty cubits, he examines from that spot outward twenty cubits, as there is a basis for anticipating the matter. It is likely that he has stumbled upon an ancient gravesite. He is not permitted to relocate the corpses, despite the fact that if he had found the single corpse by itself at first he could have removed it and its surrounding earth.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 诪转 驻专讟 诇讛专讜讙 诪讜砖讻讘 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘 讻讚专讻讜 驻专讟 诇砖专讗砖讜 诪讜谞讞 讘讬谉 讬专讻讜转讬讜

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said the following inferences from the mishna: The phrase: He found, excludes a corpse that already had been found. If it was known that there was one corpse buried in a certain place, the discovery of two previously unknown corpses does not raise the concern that perhaps it is a forgotten graveyard. Similarly, the term corpse [met] excludes a killed [harug] person. Even if there were three corpses found, if there are signs that these people were killed, the area is not assumed to be a graveyard, as they may have been buried where they were found killed. Likewise, the term lying excludes a sitting person, as Jews were not generally buried in a seated position. The phrase: In the usual manner, excludes one whose head was placed between his thighs, as that is not the way Jews are buried.

转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转 砖讞住专 讗讬谉 诇讜 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讙讜讬 讛讜讗

Ulla bar 岣nina taught a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 16:2): A corpse that is lacking a part of his body indispensable to life has no halakha of surrounding earth, i.e., there is no need to remove the nearby earth along with the corpse. Nor does it have the halakha of a graveyard, i.e., it does not join with two other corpses to establish this site as a cemetery. The Gemara asks: And with regard to all these listed above, i.e., a corpse that was buried in a sitting position or with its head between its thighs, what is the reason that they are not considered part of a graveyard? The Gemara answers: We say that perhaps the deceased was a gentile, as Jews are not usually buried in these ways.

诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘爪讚 诪专讙诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 转驻讜住讛 讜诇讗 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 诪爪讗 砖诇砖讛 讛讗讞讚 讬讚讜注 讜砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇讛 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 转讞讬诇讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讬讚讜注讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 转驻讜住讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转

The baraita further states: If one found two corpses, with the head of this one by the feet of that one and the head of that one by the feet of this one, they do not have the halakha of surrounding earth, nor do they have the halakha of a graveyard. This is not the way Jews are buried, as corpses in a Jewish cemetery always face the same direction. If one found three corpses, one of which was previously known, while the other two were found for the first time now, or if one found two for the first time and two that were known, they do not have the halakha of surrounding earth, and they also do not have the halakha of a graveyard. One does not view these corpses as connected.

诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 砖讘讚拽 讜诪爪讗 砖谞讬诐 讬讚讜注讬谉 讜讗讞讚 转讞讬诇讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转谉 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻诇 砖讬讙注转 诇专讬拽 讬讙注转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诇讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讬讚讜注讬谉 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 转讞讬诇讛

The baraita relates: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Yeshevav, who examined and found two known corpses and one corpse discovered for the first time, and he wished to deem the three corpses a graveyard. Rabbi Akiva said to him: All your toil is in vain. They said it is a graveyard only in a case of three known corpses buried in one spot or three corpses found for the first time. However, if some were known and others were discovered for the first time, one does not combine them.

谞讜讟诇谉 讜讗转 转驻讜住转谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 转驻讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗转谞讬 诪诪爪专讬诐 讟讜诇 注诪讬

搂 The mishna taught that he removes them and their surrounding earth. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of surrounding earth? Rav Yehuda said: The verse states with regard to Jacob鈥檚 instruction to Joseph to transfer his remains to Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淵ou shall carry me out from Egypt鈥 (Genesis 47:30), which indicates: Take some earth out from Egypt with me, i.e., take the earth that is near the corpse.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽) 谞讜讟诇 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讜讞讜驻专 讘讘转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

The Gemara further asks: And what is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: One takes loose dirt from near the corpse, as it is assumed it has been loosened by the blood and moisture from the corpse, and digs virgin, uncultivated, ground to a depth of three fingerbreadths, in case this earth has absorbed the blood.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 谞讜讟诇 讗转 讛拽讬住诪讬谉 讜讗转 讛拽住住讜转

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a different baraita: And what is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, explained: One takes wood chips found nearby, which might have been part of the coffin, and lumps of earth that might have absorbed the blood and moisture from a corpse.

讜讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讜讜讚讗讬谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛住驻讬拽讜转 讜讛砖讗专 诪爪讟专祝 诇专讜讘 讘谞讬谞讜 砖诇 诪转 讜诇专讜讘注 注爪诪讜转 诇诪诇讗 转专讜讜讚 专拽讘

And he discards that which is certainly not from the corpse, e.g., stones. And he sets aside the items with regard to which it is uncertain if they have a connection with the corpse. And the rest, i.e., anything that is apparently from the corpse, combine to reach the amount of the majority of the structure of a corpse, or of a quarter-kav of bones, or of a full ladle of dust from a corpse. The remains of a corpse impart ritual impurity in a tent only if they meet one of those three qualifications. Anything which is apparently the remains of the corpse is considered dust of a corpse with regard to this halakha. In any event, it is clear that this baraita presents a different definition of surrounding earth.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 转驻讜住讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘谉 注讝讗讬 谞讜讟诇 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 讜讞讜驻专 讘讘转讜诇讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转

The Gemara answers: With regard to the first statement of Rabbi Elazar, it was he who said in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, ben Azzai, as it is taught in a baraita: And how much is the measure of surrounding earth? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of ben Azzai: One takes loose earth and digs virgin ground to a depth of three fingerbreadths.

讘讜讚拽 讛讬诪谞讜

搂 The mishna taught that one must examine the ground for up to twenty cubits from that spot where a corpse was found.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讚拽 讜驻谞讛 讘讚拽 讜驻谞讛 讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 诇讗 讛讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 讛谞讱 转专讬 讜诇讗 讛谞讬 转专讬 诇讙讘讬 讛讗讬 讞讚

Rava said: With regard to one who examined, found a corpse, and removed it from its place, and again examined nearby, found another corpse, and removed it from its place as well, if he examined yet again and discovered a third corpse, he does not move this third one alongside these two he has already moved, as he now knows that this was a graveyard and the corpses were buried there intentionally. And he does not return these two alongside this one either, as he is not obligated to restore the corpses to their prior locations after they have been reburied.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇驻谞讜转 诪驻谞讛 诇讛讜谉 讜诇讬砖讜讬谞讛讜 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讬讛专讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

There are those who say that Rava said: Since permission was granted to move the first and second corpses, one may therefore move them all, including the third one. The Gemara asks: And let us deem them part of a graveyard. Since three corpses were found buried together, there might be others in the vicinity. Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Since at that point there was just one corpse, the Sages were lenient and were not concerned about any further impurity. The Sages wished to avoid uncertain impurity because people were careful to observe the halakhot of ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and additional cases of uncertain impurity would be complicated to observe.

讘讚拽 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讜谞转 拽讘专讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讬讛专讜 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks another question: If one examined twenty cubits from the location of those corpses and did not find anything, what is the halakha? Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says that Rav says: This is a graveyard. Those three corpses compose the graveyard and there is no concern for others. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Why is there no concern that there might be many more corpses in the surrounding area? Once again Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Eretz Yisrael is deemed pure in a case of uncertainty.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 住驻拽 谞讙注讬诐 讘转讞讬诇讛 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 住驻拽讜 讟诪讗

MISHNA: Any case of uncertainty with regard to leprous sores is initially deemed pure until it is established that it is a case of ritual impurity. Once it has been determined to be a case of impurity, uncertainty concerning it is deemed impure.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 [讘讜] 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛专讛 转讞讬诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讟讜诪讗讛 谞诪讬 住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the plague of leprosy鈥to pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59). Since the verse opened with purity first, this teaches that any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure. The Gemara asks: If so, if the halakha is based on this verse, then even once it has been determined to be a case of impurity, uncertainty concerning it should be deemed pure as well, as this interpretation of the verse should apply to all cases of uncertainty with regard to leprosy.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讗诐 讘讛专转 拽讚诪讛 诇砖注专 诇讘谉 讟诪讗 讜讗诐 砖注专 诇讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘讛专转 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讻讬讛讛

Rather, when this statement, that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, was stated, it was stated with regard to the following dispute in a mishna concerning an uncertain leprous sore (Nega鈥檌m 4:11): If the snow-white leprous sore [baheret], which is one sign of leprosy, preceded the white hair, which is another sign, he is impure. This halakha is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:3). And if the white hair preceded the baheret he is pure, as this is not considered a sign of impurity. If there is uncertainty as to which came first, he is impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua said: Keiha.

诪讗讬 讻讬讛讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬讛讛 讜讟讛讜专 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讛讛 讜讟诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讟讛专讜 讗讜 诇讟诪讗讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 讘讟讛专讛 转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of keiha? Rav Yehuda said: Rabbi Yehoshua pronounced the matter unsolvable and ruled it is pure. The Gemara further asks: And perhaps this means that he pronounced the matter unsolvable and ruled it is impure? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The verse states: 鈥淭o pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure鈥 (Leviticus 13:59); since the verse opened with purity first, any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure.

诪转谞讬壮 讘砖讘注讛 讚专讻讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讝拽拽 诇讝讬讘讛 讘诪讗讻诇 讜讘诪砖转讛 讘诪砖讗 讜讘拽驻讬爪讛 讜讘讞讜诇讬 讜讘诪专讗讛 讜讘讛讬专讛讜专

MISHNA: This mishna discusses another case that includes the statement: There is a basis to anticipate the matter. One examines a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] in seven ways, as long as he has not been confirmed as having a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva.] With regard to an individual鈥檚 second such discharge, before he has been established as a greater zav, one examines to see whether there may have been a particular trigger of his discharge. One examines him with regard to food and with regard to drink, in case the discharge might have been the result of overeating or excess drinking; with regard to a burden, as it might have been caused by the weight of a heavy burden; and with regard to jumping, in case he jumped and this led to the discharge; and with regard to sickness; and with regard to an arousing sight; and with regard to the thought of a woman.

诪砖谞讝拽拽 诇讝讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讜谞住讜 讜住驻讬拽讜 讜砖讻讘转 讝专注讜 讟诪讗讬诐 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

Once he has been confirmed as having a ziva, after two definite discharges of ziva, one no longer examines him in this way, as any discharge is deemed impure. If one experiences three discharges of ziva, he is obligated to bring an offering following his purification. Accordingly, his discharge that was due to circumstances beyond his control, i.e., for one of the seven reasons listed above, and his discharge about which it is uncertain if it is ziva, and even his semen, which is not usually considered the discharge of a zav, are all impure. Why is this so? It is because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Once he has the status of a zav, it can be assumed that subsequent discharges are of ziva as well.

讛诪讻讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪讚讜讛讜 诇诪讬转讛 讜讛拽诇 诪诪讛 砖讛讬讛 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讛讻讘讬讚 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 砖专讙诇讬诐 诇讚讘专

The Sages similarly taught: With regard to one who strikes another with heavy blows, and doctors assessed that he would die as a result of the beating, but his health improved from what it was, so that they then determined that he would not die from his injuries, and afterward his condition worsened and he died, the one who struck him is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, as it is assumed that the victim鈥檚 death was caused by the assault. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: He is exempt, because there is a basis for anticipating the matter. Since the victim began to recover during his illness, it is reasonable to assume that his death was caused by a factor other than the assault.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讝讘 讗转 讝讜讘讜 诇专讗讬讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬转拽砖 诇谞拽讬讘讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that one examines a zav before he has been confirmed as having a ziva, but not after? Rabbi Natan says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the zav who has an issue [zav et zovo], whether it is a man or a woman鈥 (Leviticus 15:33). This teaches that after two discharges, corresponding to the words zav and zovo, with regard to the third sighting, when one is already a zav, the verse juxtaposes the halakha of a male to that of a female: Just as it makes no difference in the case of a female whether her discharge of menstrual blood was triggered by an external factor, as she is ritually impure regardless, once a male zav has the status of impurity, one no longer examines him to see if his discharge was triggered by an external factor.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘讗转讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚专讬砖 讗转讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗转讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a mishna (Zavim 2:2) that Rabbi Eliezer says: For the third discharge one still examines him; for the fourth discharge one does not examine him. Where does the verse allude to the fourth discharge? The Gemara answers: Rather, they disagree with regard to instances of the word et,鈥 i.e., whether or not the word 鈥et鈥 teaches an additional halakha, or whether it is written purely for syntactical reasons. Rabbi Eliezer expounds instances of the word et,鈥 and therefore he counts the phrase 鈥zav et zovo鈥 as three words referring to three discharges. And the Rabbis do not expound instances of the word et,鈥 which means that in their opinion this verse alludes to only two discharges.

讗讜谞住讜 讜住驻讬拽讜

搂 The mishna taught that his discharge that was due to circumstances beyond his control, and his discharge about which it is uncertain if it is ziva, are considered impure.

Scroll To Top