Nazir 63b (סג:) — the Talmud in English

He said:

Rabbah

resolved

Rami bar Hama’s doubt from our Mishna:

If, before he shaved,

he learned that he was impure—

in either case—

whether it was known impurity or tum’at ha-tehom, he

invalidates

all the days of his naziriteship.

But

what are the circumstances?

When did he learn of the impurity on account of which he invalidates all the days of his naziriteship?

If it became known to him within the period of his naziriteship [if the Mishna is dealing with a case in which he learned of the impurity during his naziriteship]—

if so,

is it necessary to say

that he invalidates his naziriteship? We already heard this from the first clause, where we learned: A nazirite who shaved, and so forth, and if it was tum’at ha-tehom he does not invalidate his naziriteship; it follows that if he learned of it before he shaved, he invalidates his naziriteship!?

Rather, it became known to him after the period of his naziriteship,

he learned of it;

learn from this

that he learned of it after the period of his naziriteship.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbah’s resolution by way of a question and answer:

And still you must ask yourself: Does he invalidate all of it, or does he invalidate seven days?

That is: It is indeed certain that the Mishna is dealing with one who learned of the impurity after the period of his naziriteship. But how can we resolve from our Mishna Rami bar Hama’s doubt—whether he invalidates the entire naziriteship, or whether he invalidates only seven days?

The Gemara first explains Rami bar Hama’s problem:

According to whom—

according to whose view was Rami bar Hama uncertain?

If you say it was according to the Rabbis,

who maintain that even if he became impure after the period of his naziriteship [before one of the bloods was sprinkled on his behalf], he invalidates all the days,

is it not obvious that he invalidates all of it!?

And if it was according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who maintains:

Any impurity after the period of naziriteship invalidates seven days,

this case too should invalidate only seven days!? The Gemara explains Rami bar Hama’s problem:

He could say to you,

Rami bar Hama:

This applies

when, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he does not invalidate more than seven days—

when he became impure after the period of naziriteship; but this case—

he

became impure before the period of naziriteship

and only learned of it afterward.

Or perhaps, here it is different, since the knowledge came after the period of naziriteship,

meaning: Since he learned of it after the period of naziriteship, it is considered as though he became impure after the period of naziriteship.

Once Rami bar Hama’s problem has been clarified, the Gemara returns to explain Rabbah’s resolution:

And from this—

from the Mishna cited by Rabbah, you can resolve the doubt:

For

it teaches

in our Mishna: “

In either case, he invalidates it,” and it has already been explained that the Mishna must be dealing with a case in which he learned of it after the period of his naziriteship—

and

in any event,

it does not distinguish [the Mishna does not distinguish] between a case in which the impurity itself occurred after the period of naziriteship and one in which the impurity occurred within the period of naziriteship. It follows that the two cases have the same rule of invalidation: Just as if he became impure after the period of naziriteship he invalidates only seven days, so too, if he became impure within the period of naziriteship, since he learned of it after the period of naziriteship, he invalidates only seven days.

The Sages taught

with regard to the law of “tum’at ha-tehom”:

One who finds a corpse

covered with straw or stones, and the impurity was tum’at ha-tehom [as the beraita explains at its end]—

and the corpse was

lying across the width of a road

through which he passed, so that the passerby could not have avoided touching the corpse, moving it, or becoming impure through a tent over it—

if the passerby on that road is a priest,

and

with regard to eating

teruma

he is

impure, since he certainly became impure through it, and tum’at ha-tehom was not permitted with regard to teruma.

But

if he was

a nazirite

who passed through it, or

was one who

offers the Paschal sacrifice,

he is

pure, because tum’at ha-tehom was permitted to them.

But if the corpse was lying lengthwise along the road, he is pure even with regard to teruma, because this is a doubtful impurity in the public domain, and a doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure.

The beraita qualifies the ruling stated concerning a corpse lying across the width of a road, that the priest who passes through it is impure with regard to teruma, with two qualifications:

a.

In what case is this statement said,

that with regard to teruma he is impure?

When he has no place through which to pass

on that road without becoming impure, because the corpse fills the entire width of the road.

But if he has a place through which to pass

on that road without becoming impure, so that there is only a doubt concerning impurity,

even with regard to teruma

he is

pure, since we maintain: A doubtful impurity in the public domain is pure.

b.

In what case is this statement said,

that with regard to teruma he is impure?

When he found

the corpse

whole.

But

if the corpse that he found was

broken

into pieces

or dismembered

into limbs,

even if there is no place through which to pass,

he is nevertheless pure because of the doubt, since

we are concerned

that perhaps he passed between the pieces,

between the dismembered limbs of the corpse, and did not touch, move, or become impure through a tent over it.

And

if the corpse that he found was lying

in a grave,

sealed,

even

if the corpse within it was

broken or dismembered,

the priest is

impure

with regard to teruma,

because the grave joins with the corpse

—that is, the entire grave conveys impurity through a tent, even its empty space, as it is written: “And whoever touches in the open field, or a slain man, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure for seven days.”

In what case is this statement said,

that when he has a place through which to pass, or when the corpse is broken and dismembered, he is pure with regard to teruma?

When he is walking on his feet.

But

if the one who passed there was

carrying

a burden on his shoulder

or

was

riding

on an animal, he is

impure

even with regard to teruma, and even if he had a place through which to pass or the corpse was broken and dismembered.

Because

only one who is

walking on his feet can avoid touching, moving, or becoming impure through a tent over it.

But when he is

carrying

a burden

or riding, he cannot avoid touching or moving it

or becoming impure through a tent over it, because he moves back and forth in different directions and becomes impure through a tent even over its sides.

because he moves back and forth in every direction and overhangs even its sides.

In what case is this statement said,

that for a nazirite and one who offers the Paschal sacrifice he is pure?

In a case of tum’at ha-tehom.

But

with

known impurity,

where it was known that a person was lying there,

all three are impure—that is, in the same manner in which he is impure with regard to teruma, he is also impure as a nazirite and as one who offers the Paschal sacrifice.

And what is tum’at ha-tehom? Any impurity that no one at the end of the world knows about

at the time when this person became impure through it.

But if

someone knew about it,

even

one person at the end of the world, this is not tum’at ha-tehom.

If it was hidden in straw or stones, this is tum’at ha-tehom.

But if he found it hidden

in ravines, in darkness [a place that is perpetually dark],

or in crevices of the rocks,

and it was not covered,

this is not tum’at ha-tehom

since anyone who looks there can see it.

And they said

that

“tum’at ha-tehom” is permitted

only in the case of a corpse,

but with regard to other impurities, even if they are not known impurities, tum’at ha-tehom was not permitted.

We learned in the Mishna:

How so? He descended

to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating on the surface of the cave; he is impure.

It is established that a doubtful impurity

floating

on the surface of water

does not convey impurity with regard to a creeping creature,

that is: Although a doubtful impurity in a private domain renders one impure, nevertheless, if the creeping creature was floating on the surface of the water, and it is uncertain whether he touched it or did not touch it, he is not impure—

As

it was taught:

A doubtful floating impurity,

that is, it is uncertain whether he touched floating impurity,

whether

it was floating in water that was

in vessels,

and

whether

it was floating in water that was

on the ground,

it is

pure.

Rabbi Shimon says:

If it was floating in water that was

in vessels,

it is

impure, because a doubtful impurity in a private domain renders one impure; only when it was floating in water that was

on the ground

is it

pure.

pure.