Nazir 64b — the Talmud in English

A. We learned in the Mishna: “He descended, etc., to purify himself from corpse-impurity; he is impure, for an established presumption of impurity is impurity, and an established presumption of purity is purity.” This means that tum'at ha-tehom was permitted to a nazir only when he became impure with tum'at ha-tehom while he had not been impure with corpse-impurity; but if he had been impure, tum'at ha-tehom was not permitted to him. B. This law stated in our Mishna is not specifically concerning a nazir; and the same applies to one who makes the Paschal offering: tum'at ha-tehom is not permitted to him when he has an established presumption of impurity.

C. The discussion before us is explained according to the version and interpretation of the Rosh, while Tosafot abbreviated their words in explaining this discussion.

Rav Hamnuna said:

A nazir

impure with corpse-impurity

and one who makes the Paschal offering

impure with corpse-impurity

who passed over a grave of the depths on their seventh [ביום השביעי לטומאתן] on the seventh day of their impurity, לאחר הזאה וטבילה, after sprinkling and immersion, הרי אלו

[то есть в седьмой день их нечистоты, после окропления и טвилы], вот они

are pure.

What is the reason?

В том, что

эта

for tum'at ha-tehom is not sufficiently powerful to invalidate ,

tum'at ha-tehom is not sufficiently strong to invalidate [the naziritehood] in the case of a nazir, nor to prevent [him] from making the Paschal offering, even though they are still standing on the seventh day of the first impurity.

Rava thought, that according to Rav Hamnuna, anyone who became impure on the seventh day through tum'at ha-tehom, even before immersion, does not have an established presumption of impurity, and tum'at ha-tehom is permitted to him; and therefore

Rava raised an objection

from our Mishna:

He descended

the nazir

to purify himself from corpse-impurity; he is impure, for an established presumption of impurity is impurity, and an established presumption of purity is purity,

so it follows that even on his seventh day, at the time of immersion, if he became impure through tum'at ha-tehom, he is not pure!?

He said to him

Rav Hamnuna to Rava:

I concede to you concerning a nazir,

that is: I concede to you concerning the case of our Mishna, since

he is lacking

необходимой ему

the shaving,

for our Mishna deals with one who descended to immerse himself from his impurity, and necessarily he had not shaved; but I spoke only of one making the Paschal offering who had sprinkled and immersed, and of a nazir who had also shaved after his immersion.

He said

he raised [the objection]

Rava to him

to Rav Hamnuna:

It follows:

I too concede to you

concerning one making the Paschal offering, who is lacking nothing,

that is: since you stated your words only after immersion and shaving, I too concede to you that they are pure, and there is no novelty here; so what is he teaching us!?

Abaye said to him

to Rava: This is Rav Hamnuna’s novelty, for:

But he is lacking -

the one making the Paschal offering and the nazir -

the setting of the sun,

and Rav Hamnuna teaches us that, nevertheless, they are not considered to have an established presumption of impurity because of the lack of sunset.

Rava said to him

to Abaye:

The sun sets by itself [השמש מאליה היא שוקעת], [the sun sets of itself],

and plainly there is no deficiency in this, and Rav Hamnuna need not teach us this.

The Gemara adds and explains:

Abaye too retracted his position,

Abaye too retracted and conceded Rava’s reasoning, that the sun sets by itself:

For it was taught:

It is written in the section of Tazria [Leviticus 12:2]: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure for seven days, etc. And for thirty-three days she shall sit in the blood of purity; she shall touch no consecrated thing, and she shall not enter the Sanctuary until the completion of the days of her purity. And if she gives birth to a female, she shall be impure for two weeks, etc., and for sixty-six days she shall sit upon the blood of purity. And upon the completion of the days of her purity, for a male or for a female, she shall bring [on day forty-one for a male and on day eighty-one for a female] a year-old lamb for an elevation-offering and a dove or a turtledove for a sin-offering, etc. And they shall offer it before the Lord, and atone for her, and she shall be pure from the source of her blood. This is the law of the woman who gives birth, for a male or for a female.”

And since it says, “This is the law of the woman who gives birth,” which implies: one law for a woman who gives birth to many offspring, this teaches that “she brings one offering for many births,” such as when she gave birth and then miscarried again.

Could it be that she brings one offering for a birth after the completion,

that is: could it be that even if she gave birth on day forty-one for a male or day eighty-one for a female, one offering suffices for her for the two births? -

The verse says: “

This

law of the woman who gives birth”—to exclude [this].

Could it be that she does not bring

a separate offering

for a birth

second

которые

произошли

that was before the completion

of the first birth,

but she brings for

a third birth

которые

произошли

that was after the completion

of the first birth, and within the completion period of the second birth -

The verse says: “

And upon the completion

of the days of her purity,” and it implies: specifically if she miscarried

on the day of the completion

of a previous birth [or afterward]

she brings

a separate offering, but if she gave birth

within the completion

of the birth preceding it

she does not bring

a separate offering, but only one offering for all three births; and although the third birth was after the completion of the first birth, since it was within the completion period of the second birth.

сказал Рав Кахана: почему она не приносит отдельную жертву за третьи роды, хотя они произошли после окончания срока первых родов?

And Rav Kahana said:

What is the reason that she does not bring a separate offering for the third birth, although it occurred after the completion of the first birth?

то есть до того, как закончился срок вторых родов, ещё не наступил момент, подходящий для принесения жертвы за первые роды. Поэтому это считается как будто третьи роды произошли в пределах срока первых родов.

Because here she is different, for she is lacking an offering,

that is: since the time fit for bringing an offering for the first birth had not arrived before the days of the second birth were completed, it is therefore as though this too occurred within the completion period of the first birth.

And we raised this: If so,

there -

when she gave birth a second time after the completion of the first birth -

also,

why does she bring a separate offering, when

she is lacking sunset!?

That is: it follows that she brings an offering for a birth after the completion even if she delayed her immersion until day forty-one for a male or day eighty-one for a female, and she still requires sunset, and she cannot bring her atonement until the next day. It follows that the time fit for bringing an offering had not arrived; why is she not exempted with one offering for both of them!?

то есть ответил

And he said

he answered

Abaye: The sun sets by itself,

and for this reason this is not considered a time unfit for bringing an offering; and also, the fact that she cannot bring it at night because offerings are not brought at night is not a deficiency, for “night is not considered a lack of time”; therefore she is liable for a separate offering for the second birth.

Thus we have learned that Abaye himself holds: “The sun sets by itself.”

Mishna:

One who finds a corpse

alone in a grave

at first,

that is: it was not known that there was a grave there, and the corpse was

lying

there

in its usual manner,

and he wished to perform purities there -

This is: A.

he removes it,

that is: he is permitted to remove the corpse from its place, for since it was not known that there was a grave there, we assume that it was buried there incidentally and with the intention of removing it.

B.

часть земли, находившуюся под ним,

and he removes with it [that is: he takes from there in order to purify the place]

its earth-hold,

some of the earth beneath it, for there too there is concern for corpse-impurity; and once he has removed it and its earth-hold, he need no longer be concerned about impurity either in that place or in its surroundings.

And likewise, if he found

two,

this person

takes them and the earth taken with them.

But if

he found three

dead bodies:

If there is between one and the other from four cubits up to eight,

that is: if they were lying as they are fit to be laid in a cave whose width is four cubits and whose length is eight cubits -

this is "

a burial area";

and therefore:

a. It is forbidden to remove them, for it has become clear that a cemetery was there.