Nazir 65b — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

If he examined

a certain place to see whether there was a grave in it, and found one grave,

and removed

it according to the law of a single grave found initially, and again

examined

and found another grave,

and removed

that one as well, and again

examined and found [

and found another grave], and it was discovered that there had been here a “grave area,” from which it is forbidden to remove the graves; and what shall he do with the three graves:

He does not remove this one,

it is not permitted to remove the third grave that he found

alongside the other two [

next to the two graves that he had already removed], for there had been a “grave area” here, and it is forbidden to remove it.

And

also

he does not remove these two alongside this one grave,

and he likewise need not return the two graves that he had already removed to their original place next to the third one, for the Sages did not obligate him to do so, since at the time that he removed them it was not known that this was a “grave area.”

There are those who say

that

Rava said [

there are those who say that this is what Rava said]:

Since permission was given to remove, he removes

(them

for it

,

that is, the third grave]. That is to say: Since he had already removed the first ones with permission, before he knew that they were three graves, we regard the third one as a single grave, to which the law of a “grave area” does not apply, and it is permitted to remove it.

And

still

we should make them a grave area

and not remove it; that is, what logic is this? Behold, it was revealed that there had been a “grave area” here!?

Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext [

a pretext]

and purified the Land of Israel

so that there would not be impurity in it; that is, indeed this is only a minor rationale, but the Sages relied even upon a slight pretext and a minor rationale such as this, in order to purify the Land of Israel.

We learned in the Mishna: “He examines from it and onward twenty cubits”:

The Gemara is uncertain: What is the law if he

examined

(from

twenty cubits

to one side of the grave area,

and did not find

additional graves—

What

is the law? Is he obligated to examine the other side, or perhaps we say: Just as there are no graves on this side, so there are no graves on the other side as well?

Rav Mesharsheya said:

He has only that

grave area

that he found, and he need not examine any further.

The Gemara wonders:

What is the reason? What reason is there for the matter, and why should we not be concerned that there are additional graves on the other side!?

What rationale is there for this? Why should we not be concerned that there are additional graves on the other side!?

Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and purified the Land of Israel

so as not to be concerned about impurity in it.

Since the editor of the Mishna mentioned, concerning hidden impurity, “whose presumption is impure, [he is] impure,” the tannai brings two additional Mishnayot in which there is a distinction in the laws of impurity between one who had a presumption of impurity or a presumption of ziva, and one who did not have such a presumption.

Mishna:

With regard to every uncertainty concerning afflictions:

If the uncertainty was

at the beginning,

and

before he became subject to impurity,

that is, the uncertainty is whether he became impure through the affliction—

Its uncertainty is

pure,

because “we establish the person upon his presumption” that he had been pure, and like every uncertainty in which we establish the matter upon its initial presumption.

But if

after he had become subject

already

to impurity,

that is, the uncertainty is whether he became pure from the affliction—

Its

uncertainty is impure,

because we must establish him with a presumption of impurity.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

From where are these words?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

that is, Rav Yehuda himself explained the reason for the matter: For

the verse says: “

To declare him pure or to declare him impure,”

since Scripture began with him with purity first,

as it says “to declare him pure” and afterward “to declare him impure.”

The questioner thought that Rav Yehuda’s words were said to explain the reason for our Mishna, which declared pure an uncertainty concerning an affliction before he became subject to impurity, and therefore he raised the objection:

If so,

if the tannai of our Mishna holds this exposition, this is difficult:

Even after he became subject to impurity as well

he should have said that

his uncertainty is pure;

for necessarily the verse was not needed to declare pure one who had not become subject to impurity, since it is logical to declare him pure, for we have an established principle everywhere: “Establish the matter upon its presumption,” but certainly the verse came to declare pure one who stands with a presumption of impurity.

Because of this objection, the Gemara explains Rav Yehuda’s words in the name of Rav in another manner:

Rather,

in our Mishna we never need to seek a reason at all, since we can say, “Establish the matter upon its presumption”; therefore, in the first clause, where he had a presumption of purity, we established him upon his presumption, and he is pure; whereas in the latter clause, where he had a presumption of impurity, we established him upon his presumption, and he is impure.

And

when it was stated

this

that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

it was not said concerning our Mishna, but rather

concerning this [

concerning another Mishna]

it was stated,

to explain the reason of the tannai who said there: Even when he stands with a presumption of impurity, he is pure; for we learned:

For we learned:

It is written in the section of leprosy [Leviticus 13:9]: “When a plague of leprosy is in a person, he shall be brought to the kohen. And the kohen shall see, etc., and it has changed the hair to white, etc. It is an old leprosy on the skin of his flesh, and the kohen shall declare him impure; he shall not quarantine him, for he is impure.” Thus, white hair in a baheret is a sign of impurity, and from what the Torah said, “and it has changed the hair to white,” it is implied that the baheret is what changed it to white, and therefore:

If the baheret preceded the white hair,

he is

impure; but if the white hair preceded the baheret,

he is

pure.

And if there was a

doubt which preceded which, he is

as to which preceded the other, then he is

impure,

for example, where he had become subject to impurity, having been declared confirmed because of another affliction, and then this doubt arose in him.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is weakened.

And we explain:

What is “it is weakened”?

Rav Yehuda said: It is weakened and pure,

that is, it is as though the white appearance of the affliction had been weakened, which is a sign of purity, as it is written [Leviticus 13:6]: “And the kohen shall see it on the seventh day a second time, and behold, the affliction has weakened, etc., and the kohen shall declare him pure.”

And concerning Rabbi Yehoshua in this Mishna, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Perhaps it is weakened and impure,

that is, from where do we know that Rabbi Yehoshua holds him pure? Perhaps he is impure, since we are dealing with one who had become subject to impurity!?

And concerning this

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

For

the verse says “

to declare him pure or to declare him impure,”

since Scripture began with him with purity first.

A. If a person experienced one sight of ziva, this is only like one who experienced a seminal emission, and he is impure with evening impurity.

B. If he experienced two sights, he is a zav, and he counts seven days; and if he experienced an additional sight within the seven days, he invalidates his count, until he counts seven clean days, immerses, and becomes pure at sunset.

C. If he experienced three sights, he brings an offering after counting seven clean days.

D. A man becomes a zav through whiteness, that is, through seeing ziva issuing from the organ, whereas a woman becomes a zava through redness: if she saw for one day or two on certain days [the eleven days following her days of menstruation], she is a “minor zava” and observes one clean day corresponding to them; and if she saw for three days, she is a “major zava,” and her law is like that of a zav with three sights: she counts seven clean days and brings an offering on the eighth.

E. The discharge of the zav and the blood of the woman are primary sources of impurity and impart impurity through contact and carrying; likewise, their spittle is a primary source of impurity. There are also other liquids that are secondary derivatives of impurity, and there are liquids that are completely pure [see all this in Maimonides, chapter 1 of the Laws of Those Lacking Atonement for Impurity of Bedding and Seating]; and in our sugya the law of semen that issued from the zav will be explained.

F. A woman, whether a minor zava or a major zava, is impure even if she saw blood involuntarily, and an involuntary sight likewise invalidates her count; but the law of a man is not so, for the Torah said: “When any man has a discharge from his flesh,” implying: “from his flesh,” and not because of his involuntary circumstance. And in the Mishna before us it will be explained which things allow the sight to be attributed to their cause and are called an involuntary sight, and it will be explained which zav does not impart impurity through an involuntary sight.

Mishna:

By seven means [

things]

they examine the zav,

in order to know whether the ziva was not caused by these things, for a sight caused by them is an involuntary sight and does not impart impurity.

And when do they examine him?

Before he became subject to ziva,

before he experienced this sight; that is, they examine him only concerning the first sight or the second, since at the time that he experienced these sights he was not yet a zav.

And these are the things concerning which they examine whether they occurred, for if they indeed occurred, they attribute the sight to them:

A.

through food;

B.

and through drink;

C.

through carrying;

D.

and through jumping;

E.

and through illness;

F.

and through a sight;

G.

and through a thought.—

А.

How so? He ate excessively, or drank much, or ate foods or drank beverages that bring about a seminal emission, or carried a heavy burden, or jumped from place to place—and included in this matter is if he was struck on his back—or he was ill; or he saw a woman and desired intercourse with her; or he thought about matters of intercourse, even though he did not think about intercourse with a woman whom he knows. If one of all these preceded it, and he experienced a sight of zov, they attribute it to that cause, and it does not impart impurity.

But

after he became subject to ziva,

when he had already experienced two sights and was examined and it was not caused by an involuntary circumstance, again

they do not examine him

concerning the third sight; and even if the third sight was involuntary, he is impure and liable for an offering.

And because there is supporting indication in the matter that the sight did not come because of those things, since he had already become a zav, as the Mishna explains below.

And the Mishna explains that with regard to three matters, a zav who had become subject to ziva differs from one who had not become subject to ziva:

A.

His involuntary circumstance

of a zav, namely a sight caused by an involuntary circumstance, as explained above.

A.

And his uncertainty,

a sight concerning which there is uncertainty whether it renders him impure [and in the Gemara it will be explained what uncertainty we are discussing].

And his semen

of the zav [and this will be further explained in the Gemara]—

All these three are

impure

after he became subject to ziva, because

there is supporting indication in the matter.

Since the editor of the Mishna mentioned “there is supporting indication in the matter,” he brought an additional law in which they likewise said, “there is supporting indication in the matter.”

One who strikes his fellow, and they assessed him—

the court assessed the one who was struck—

for death,

that he would die because of this blow,

and his condition improved

the condition of the one who was struck

from what it had been

at the time of the striking, and they reassessed him as destined to live, and he returned

afterward

and

his condition worsened

his condition

and he died—

Behold, the one who struck

is liable

for death, for we attribute the death that ultimately occurred to the striking of the one who struck, even though in the meantime the condition of the one who was struck improved.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: He is exempt

the one who struck; and because:

there are grounds for the matter

that he was ill and died because of the illness, for if he died because of the blow, his condition would not have improved in the meantime.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: In seven ways they examine the zav before he has been established as subject to impurity, and so on; once he has been established as subject to ziva, they do not examine him

from where are these words

that once he has been established as subject to ziva, even his sighting caused by an accident renders him impure?

Rabbi Natan said:

For

the verse says

at the end of the sections of the zav, the one who has a seminal emission, the menstruant woman, and the woman with a flux: “This is the law of the zav and of him from whom a seminal emission goes out, to render impurity through it. And the woman who is ill in her menstruation

and the zav with his flux

for male and for female”—

And this is how it is expounded: “And the zav”—this is one sighting; “with his flux”—this is a second sighting; “for male”—meaning: until here, he has the status of a male, who does not become impure through an involuntary emission; from here onward:

for the third sighting he was compared

was compared] the zav

to a female

, and just as the female with a flux is impure through an involuntary emission, so too his third sighting renders a zav impure even through an involuntary emission.

The Gemara asks:

But was it not taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: In

a

third

sighting they still

examine him

, and if it was caused by an accident, it does not render him impure, and only

in

ziva

fourth

—which is within the days of counting, during which he invalidates his counting—

they do not examine him

, for this sighting invalidates it even when caused by an accident.

And what is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? For after all, the third sighting was compared to a female!?

Rather

the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer

in"

“at”

they disagree,

meaning: the reason for their dispute is whether “with his flux,” which is written in the same section in which the Torah compared the zav to a female, is also expounded:

Rabbi Eliezer expounds"

“at”

, and it follows that Scripture gave the status of a male for three sightings, while for the fourth the Torah compared him to a female, to render him impure through an involuntary emission.

But the Rabbis do not expound"

“at”

, and the status of a male applies only to the first two sightings, while for the third he was compared to a female.

We learned in the Mishna:

His involuntary emission and his doubt

and his seminal emission are impure, for there are grounds for the matter: