Nazir 63a (סג.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A nazirite who shaved

the purification shaving upon completion of his naziriteship,

and it became known to him that he was impure

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

If it is known impurity

meaning that at the time the nazirite contracted the impurity, there was even someone at the end of the world who knew of the existence of the corpse, he

invalidates

his naziriteship, even though he had already shaved.

And if it is

impurity of the depths

[a hidden impurity, as though it were in the depths], such that not even one person knew at the time the nazirite contracted the impurity of the existence of a corpse in that place, he

does not invalidate.

The conclusion of the Gemara is that this is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

But

if, before he shaved,

it became known to him that he had contracted impurity during the count of his naziriteship—

in either case

[whether it is impurity of the depths or known impurity], he

invalidates.

Later in the Mishna, the tanna explains that there are two conditions with regard to “impurity of the depths”:

a. It must be covered.

b. He must not have contracted it while purifying himself from a previous corpse impurity [but if he was purifying himself from the impurity of a creeping animal and contracted corpse impurity that was “impurity of the depths,” it is of no consequence].

The tanna teaches us these two conditions by means of the case of a person who descends to immerse for purification from the impurity of a creeping animal or of a corpse, and incidentally teaches us additional laws.

How

does the law of impurity of the depths apply?

The nazirite descended

the nazirite

to immerse in a cave

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

and a

kezayit of

a corpse was found floating on the surface of the cave

after some time, and it is possible that he had cast a tent over

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

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

b. Although it is uncertain whether that kezayit 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 one could presume that he had ordinarily inspected his surroundings beforehand, and that this impurity certainly was not present when he immersed—nevertheless, he is impure, since any uncertain impurity in a private domain renders him impure.

But if

a

kezayit of a corpse was found after some time

embedded in the floor of the cave, then this is “impurity of the depths.”

In any event:

Only if

the nazirite

descended

the nazirite

for pleasure

[to bathe for enjoyment], and not to purify himself from corpse impurity, is he

pure,

so that he does not invalidate his naziriteship and does not perform the impurity shaving.

But if the nazirite descended to the cave

to purify himself from a previous corpse impurity

he is

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

One whose presumptive status is impure—

impure; and one whose presumptive status is pure—

pure.

That is: The novel leniency of impurity of the depths was stated only with regard to one whose presumptive status was pure at the time he contracted impurity of the depths. But if he had the presumptive status of one impure with corpse impurity when he contracted it, “impurity of the depths” was not permitted to him, and therefore he is impure even in a case of uncertainty, since uncertain impurity in a private domain renders him impure.

And because

there is substantial support for this!

That is, there is a strong reason for this matter: since he has the presumptive status of corpse impurity, “impurity of the depths” was not permitted in his case.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

From where are these matters

that impurity of the depths was permitted?

Rabbi Elazar said:

Since

the verse says: “

And if a person dies suddenly beside him

and defiles the consecrated head of his naziriteship.”

Therefore the Torah said

“beside him,”

to teach that it must be

clear to him,

so that the impurity is clear at the time he contracts it; but in the case of impurity of the depths, which is not clear and which no one at the end of the world recognized, he does not invalidate his naziriteship.

With regard to one who contracted known corpse impurity, the Paschal offering may not be slaughtered or its blood sprinkled on his behalf. Even if they slaughtered and sprinkled the blood of the Paschal offering on his behalf and it subsequently became known to him that he had been impure, he must bring a second Paschal offering. If it became known to him before the sprinkling, they may not sprinkle the blood on his behalf, and he must bring a second Paschal offering.

But if it became known to him between the slaughter and the sprinkling that he had contracted “impurity of the depths,” they sprinkle the blood of the Paschal offering on his behalf, and he does not bring a second Paschal offering.

Reish Lakish said:

When

the verse says with regard to one who performs the Paschal offering: “Any person,

when he becomes impure through a corpse or is on a distant road

whether for you or for your generations, and he shall perform the Paschal offering for the Lord. In the second month”—

The verse juxtaposed impurity to a road in order to teach that the impurity must be

like a road:

just as a road is exposed, so too all

impurity must be

exposed.

We have thus learned with regard to one who performs the Paschal offering that impurity of the depths was permitted to him. And from one who performs the Paschal offering we learn the same law for a nazirite.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Elazar, who maintains that the source for permitting impurity of the depths is “if a person dies beside him”:

But then, what of the beraita that teaches: What is impurity of the depths?

Any impurity that no one recognizes

[that is, no one knows that the impurity exists]—at the time the nazirite or the one performing the Paschal offering contracts the impurity—even

one person at the end of the world.

But

if

someone recognizes it, even

one

person at the end of the world, this is not impurity of the depths.

The difficulty now arises:

Granted, according to the one who says

[Reish Lakish]:

“like a road”—

it works well,

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

But according to the one who says:

“clear to him,”

if

one person at the end of the world recognizes it, what difference does that make, since ultimately it is not clear to him!?

Furthermore,

the difficulty applies according to all the approaches:

For there is a beraita that teaches: One who finds a corpse

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

lying across the width of a road

through which he passed, so that it is impossible that the passerby did not touch the corpse, move it, or cast a tent over it:

With regard to teruma,

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

impure,

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

But

with regard to a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering, he is

pure,

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

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

what difference is there

between teruma and a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering!?

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that the permission of

impurity of the depths was received as a tradition

[a received teaching of the Sages], as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and it was stated only with regard to a nazirite and one performing the Paschal offering, and not with regard to teruma.

We learned in the Mishna:

If, before he shaved,

in either case he invalidates his naziriteship:

Who is the tanna

who distinguishes between before the shaving and after the shaving?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who says:

The shaving is indispensable

[the nazirite does not become permitted to him the prohibitions of naziriteship until he shaves]—

And since, according to the Sages, who maintain that once one of the bloods has been sprinkled on his behalf he has already left the state of naziriteship, before the shaving is therefore equivalent to after the shaving. According to them, the law depends not on the shaving but on the slaughter of one of the offerings. Likewise, with regard to one performing the Paschal offering, according to everyone the law depends on whether he learned of his impurity before or after the slaughter of the Paschal offering.

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

b. The dilemma of Rami bar Ḥama is unrelated to the law of impurity of the depths. Rather, he is uncertain about the laws governing the invalidation of naziriteship, and it is mentioned here only because Rabba resolved it from our Mishna.

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma:

If a nazirite became impure

through corpse impurity

during the completion

of his naziriteship,

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 status with regard to invalidation, according to Rabbi Eliezer?

Is it that

we follow the time of 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], so that his status is as though he became impure after the completion, in which case he invalidates only seven days?

Or not

do we follow the time of knowledge, but rather the time when he contracted the impurity, which was during the completion of the days of his naziriteship?