Nazir 63a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A nazirite who shaved

the purification shaving upon the completion of his days of naziriteship,

and it became known to him that he was impure,

that is: it became known to him after the shaving that he had become impure during his days of naziriteship, with an impurity that invalidates his naziriteship:

If it is a known impurity,

that at the time of the nazirite’s becoming impure there was even one person at the end of the world who knew of the corpse’s existence, he

invalidates

his days of naziriteship, even though he had already shaved.

And if it is

an impurity of the depths,

an undiscovered impurity, as though it were in the depths, concerning which not even one person knew at the time of the nazirite’s becoming impure of the existence of a corpse in that place,

he does not invalidate.

Вывод

And the Gemara’s conclusion is that this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

But

if, before he shaved,

it became known to him that he had become impure during the count of his days of naziriteship—

in either case—

whether it is an impurity of the depths or whether it is a known impurity—he

invalidates.

Далее в

In the continuation of the Mishna, the tan­nay explains that there are two conditions for “an impurity of the depths”:

a. That it be covered.

b. That he did not become impure through it while he was purifying himself from a previous corpse-impurity. [But if he was purifying himself from the impurity of a creeping creature and became impure through a corpse by “an impurity of the depths,” it is of no concern to us.]

The tan­nay teaches us the two conditions by means of the case of a person descending to immerse for his purification from a creeping creature or from a corpse, and, incidentally, teaches us additional laws.

How

does the law of an impurity of the depths apply?

The nazirite descended

to

immerse in a cave,

in order to purify himself from an impurity that is not corpse-impurity,

and there was found

after some time an olive-bulk of

a corpse floating on the surface of the cave,

and it is possible that he overshadowed the corpse, this is not “an impurity of the depths,” and he is

impure.

the corpse; this is not “impurity of the depths,” and he is

The tan­nay teaches us two laws: a. Since the corpse was found floating on the surface of the cave and was not covered, this is not “an impurity of the depths,” which is pure.

b. Although it is uncertain whether that olive-bulk of a corpse was in the cave at the time the nazirite descended to immerse, and although the nazirite descended there for purification, so that there was room to presume that he had first examined his surroundings and certainly this impurity was not present when he immersed, nevertheless he is impure, since every uncertain impurity in a private domain renders him impure.

But if

there was found

after some time an olive-bulk of a corpse

sunken in the ground of the cave,

then it is “an impurity of the depths.”

In any event:

Only if

the nazirite descended

to

bathe for pleasure—

a bathing for the purpose of enjoyment—and not to purify himself from corpse-impurity— is he

pure,

for he does not invalidate his days of naziriteship and does not perform an impurity-shaving.

But if the nazirite descended into the cave

to purify himself from corpse-impurity

that preceded it, he is

impure,

even though it is “an impurity of the depths,” and even though it is uncertain whether the corpse was there when he descended to immerse.

One whose presumption is that he is impure—

impure; and one whose presumption is that he is pure—

pure.

That is: the novel law concerning an impurity of the depths was stated only for one who had the presumption of purity at the time he became impure with an impurity of the depths. But if he had the presumption of corpse-impurity at the time he became impure through it, “an impurity of the depths” was not permitted to him, and therefore he is impure even in a case of uncertainty, for uncertain impurity in a private domain renders him impure.

And because

there are grounds for the matter!

That is, there is a strong reason for the matter: since he had the presumption of corpse-impurity, “an impurity of the depths” was not permitted to him.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

From where are these words

that an impurity of the depths was permitted?

Rabbi Elazar said:

Since

the verse says: “

And if a dead person should suddenly die beside him

and defile the consecration of his head.”

And therefore the Torah said

“beside him,”

in order to teach

“that is clear to him,”

that the impurity must be clear at the time he becomes impure; but in the case of an impurity of the depths, which is not clear and which no one at the end of the world recognized, he does not invalidate.

For one who became impure with a known corpse-impurity, they do not slaughter and throw the blood of the Paschal offering for him, and even if they slaughtered and threw the blood of the Paschal offering for him and it subsequently became known to him that he had been impure, he brings a second Paschal offering. And if it became known to him before the throwing, they do not throw the blood for him, and he brings a second Paschal offering.

But if it became known to him between the slaughter and the throwing that he had become impure with “an impurity of the depths,” then they throw the blood of the Paschal offering for him, and he does not bring a second Paschal offering.

Resh Lakish said:

When

the verse says concerning one who performs the Paschal offering: “Each person,

when he becomes impure through a person

or is on a distant road, for you or for your generations, and he shall perform a Paschal offering for the Lord. In the second month”—

Therefore Scripture juxtaposed impurity to “road” in order to teach: the impurity must be

as a road—

just as a road is exposed, so too everything—

impurity—

must be exposed.

We have therefore learned concerning one who performs the Paschal offering that an impurity of the depths was permitted to him. And from one who performs the Paschal offering we learn it concerning a nazirite.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that the source of the permission for an impurity of the depths is “when a dead person dies beside him”:

But the beraita teaches: What is an impurity of the depths?—

Anything that he does not recognize,

that is, does not know of the impurity’s actual existence—at the time the nazirite or the one who performs the Paschal offering becomes impure—even

one person at the end of the world.

But

if

he recognizes it, even

one person at the end of the world,

this is not an impurity of the depths.

And now it is difficult:

Granted, according to the one who says

[Resh Lakish]: “

as a road”

works well,

since once one person knows of this impurity, it already somewhat resembles a road.

But according to the one who says: “

that is clear to him,”

if one person at the end of the world recognizes it,

what is there?

For in the end, it is not clear to him!?

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty according to all the views:

For this beraita teaches: One who finds a corpse

hidden in straw or stones, and the impurity was an impurity of the depths, and the corpse was

lying across the width of a road

through which he passed, and it is impossible that the passerby did not touch the corpse there, or move it, or overshadow it:

With regard to teruma,

that is, if the passerby on that road was a priest, and the matter concerns eating teruma, he is

impure,

for he certainly became impure through it, and an impurity of the depths was not permitted with regard to teruma.

But

with regard to a nazirite and the performance of the Paschal offering,

he is

pure,

even though he certainly became impure through a corpse, since an impurity of the depths was permitted to a nazirite and to one who performs the Paschal offering.

And if indeed the reason for the permission of an impurity of the depths is as explained, then

what difference is there

between teruma and a nazirite and one who performs the Paschal offering!?

Rather,

necessarily, the permission of

an impurity of the depths is an inherited teaching,

a received tradition among the Sages, from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai; and it was stated only concerning a nazirite and one who performs the Paschal offering, and not concerning teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

If, before he shaved,

in either case he invalidates:

Who is the tan­nay

who maintains that there is a distinction between before the shaving and after the shaving?

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who said:

The shaving prevents

[the nazirite is not released from the prohibitions of naziriteship until he shaves]—

And since, according to the Sages, who hold that once one of the bloods has been sprinkled for him he has already emerged from his naziriteship, for them before the shaving is the same as after the shaving. According to them, the law depends not on the shaving but on the slaughter of one of the offerings; and likewise concerning one who performs the Paschal offering, according to everyone, the law depends on whether it became known to him before the slaughter of the Paschal offering or afterward.

a. We learned above in the Mishna [16a]: “One who said, ‘I am hereby a nazirite’ [an unspecified naziriteship of thirty days], if he became impure on the thirtieth day, he invalidates everything [for the thirtieth day is included among his days of naziriteship]; Rabbi Eliezer says: He invalidates only seven,” and his reason is [according to the view of Rav Mattana, whose ruling is the halakha] that “part of the thirtieth day is like all of it,” and he is already after the completion of his days of naziriteship. Therefore he invalidates only seven days; that is, he waits seven days until he becomes pure and then brings his offerings.

b. Rami bar Hama’s problem is not connected with the law of an impurity of the depths; rather, he is uncertain concerning the laws of the invalidation of naziriteship, and it was mentioned here only because Rabba resolved it from our Mishna.

Rami bar Hama raised a problem:

If a nazirite became impure

through corpse-impurity

during the completion

of his nazirite days,

and it became known to him after the completion,

that is, on the thirtieth day, after part of the day had already passed,

what

is his law with regard to invalidation, according to Rabbi Eliezer?

Is it that

we follow the knowledge, and the knowledge

is

after the completion,

and it is not powerful enough to invalidate,

[this impurity does not have the power to invalidate], and his law is as though he became impure after the completion, in which case he invalidates only seven days?

Or not

do we follow the knowledge, but rather the time of the impurity, and this occurred during the completion of his days of naziriteship?