Nazir 63b — the Talmud in English

He said

Rabba

resolved

the doubt of Rami bar Hama from our Mishna:

If, before he shaved,

it became known to him that he was impure—

In either case—

whether it was known impurity or tumah of the depths—he

invalidates

all the days of his naziriteship.

But

how is it:

when did the impurity on account of which he invalidates all the days of his naziriteship become known to him?

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

if so,

is it necessary to say

that he invalidates? But we already heard this from the first clause, where we learned: “A nazirite who shaved, and so on; and if it is tumah of the depths, he does not invalidate”—thus it follows that if he learned of it before he shaved, he invalidates!?

Rather, is it not after the period of fullness

that he learned of it?

Learn from it

that he learned of it after the period of fullness.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabba’s obvious resolution by means of a question and answer:

And still, you need to ask yourself: does he invalidate all of it, or does he invalidate seven [days]?

That is: indeed, it is certain that the Mishna is dealing with one who learned of it after the period of fullness; but how do we know that Rabba’s doubt can be resolved from our Mishna—whether he invalidates the entire naziriteship, or whether he invalidates only seven days?

The Gemara first explains the problem of Rami bar Hama:

For whom—

according to whose view did Rami bar Hama have his doubt?

If we say, for the Rabbis,

who hold that even if he became impure after the period of fullness [before one of the bloods had been sprinkled upon him], he invalidates all the days, then

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

And if it is for Rabbi Eliezer,

he holds:

anything after the period of fullness invalidates seven; then this one too should invalidate only seven days!? The Gemara explains Rami bar Hama’s problem:

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 matter applies

when, according to Rabbi Eliezer, he invalidates only seven days—

when he became impure after the period of fullness; but this one,

behold,

became impure before the period of fullness

that he became impure.

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

that is: since he learned of it after the period of fullness, this is like one who became impure after the period of fullness.

Once Rami bar Hama’s problem has been explained, the Gemara returns to explain Rabba’s obvious resolution:

And from it

—from the Mishna that Rabba cited, you can resolve the doubt:

For

it teaches

in our Mishna,

“In either case, he invalidates,” and it has already been explained that the Mishna necessarily deals with a case in which he learned of it after the period of fullness—

а уже было объяснено, что Мишна непременно говорит о случае, когда он узнал об этом после установленного срока,

and

in any event,

it does not distinguish [the Mishna does not distinguish] between whether the impurity itself was also after the period of fullness or whether the impurity was within the period of fullness; and it follows that the law of invalidation is the same in both cases. Just as when he became impure after the period of fullness he invalidates only seven, so too when he became impure within the period of fullness, since he learned of it after the period of fullness, he invalidates only seven.

The Sages taught

with regard to the law of “tumah of the depths”:

One who finds a corpse

covered with straw or stones, and the impurity was “tumah of the depths” [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 failed either to touch the corpse, move it, or overhang 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 tumah of the depths was not permitted with regard to teruma.

поскольку несомненно осквернился от него; скрытая нечистота не разрешена в отношении трумы.

But

if he were

a nazirite

who passed through it, or

a

performer of the Pesaḥ offering,

he is

pure, because tumah of the depths was permitted for them.

But if the corpse was lying along the length of the road, he is pure even with regard to teruma, for this is doubtful impurity in a public domain, whose doubt is pure.

The beraita qualifies the law stated concerning a corpse lying across the width of a road, that the priest passing 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 of impurity,

even with regard to teruma

he is

pure, for we hold: doubtful impurity in a public domain—he is pure.

поскольку установлено: сомнительная нечистота в общественном владении считается чистой.

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,

nevertheless he is pure because of the doubt, for

we are concerned

that perhaps he passed between the pieces, between the dismembered limbs of the corpse, and did not touch, move, or overhang it.

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

though the corpse inside it was

broken or dismembered,

the priest is

impure

with regard to teruma,

because the grave joins it together

with the corpse; that is, the entire grave conveys impurity through overhang, even its empty space, as it is written: “And whoever touches upon the open field, and so on, 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 it is broken and dismembered, he is pure with regard to teruma?

When walking on his feet.

But

if the one who passed there was

carrying

a load 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 the

one walking on his feet can avoid touching, moving, and overhanging.

But when he is

carrying

a load

or riding, he cannot avoid touching or moving

or overhanging,

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 a performer of the Pesaḥ offering he is pure?

With regard to tumah of the depths.

But

with regard to

known impurity,

that they knew 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 performer of the Pesaḥ offering.

то есть так же, как он нечист в отношении трумы, он нечист также как назорей и совершающий пасхальную жертву.

And what is tumah of the depths? Anything that no one at the end of the world knows about

at the time when this person became impure through it.

But if

one person knew about it

even

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

If it was hidden in straw or stones, this is tumah of the depths.

But if he found it hidden

in the sea, and in darkness [a place that is always dark],

[в месте, постоянно пребывающем во тьме],

and in clefts of the rocks,

and it was not covered,

this is not tumah of the depths,

for in all these places one who peers there can see it.

And they said

that

“tumah of the depths” was permitted

only for a corpse,

but other impurities—even one that is not known impurity—tumah of the depths was not permitted for them.

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”:

We hold: doubtful impurity

floating

on the surface of the water

does not convey impurity with regard to a creeping creature,

that is: even though 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:

Doubtful floating impurity,

that is: it is doubtful 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, since doubtful impurity in a private domain renders one impure; but only when it was floating in water that was

on the ground

on the ground

is it

pure.