Nazir 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

If he examined

a certain place to determine whether there was a grave there, and found one grave,

and cleared

it in accordance with the law governing a single grave discovered initially, and then

examined

and found another grave,

and cleared

that one as well, and then

examined and found [

another grave], and it turned out that there had been a “graveyard” here, from which it is forbidden to remove the graves; what should he do with the three graves:

He may not remove this one,

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

in the vicinity of the other two [

beside the two graves that he had already removed], since there had been a graveyard here, and it is forbidden to remove it.

And

even

he may not move these two beside this one

nor is he required to return the two graves that he had already removed to their original place beside the third one. The Sages did not obligate him to do so, since at the time he removed them it was not known that this was a graveyard.

There are those who say

that

Rava said [

some say that this is what Rava said]:

Since permission was given to remove them, he removes them

(for them

him,

the third grave].

That is to say: Since he had already removed the first graves with permission, before knowing that there were three graves, we treat the third as a single grave, to which the law of a “graveyard” does not apply, and he is permitted to remove it. And we raise an objection:

And

still,

he should make them a graveyard

and not remove it. In other words: What rationale is this? The fact has been revealed that there was a “graveyard” here!?

Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext

a pretext

and rendered Eretz Yisrael pure

so that there would be no ritual impurity in it. That is to say: Indeed, this is merely a minor rationale, but the Sages relied even on a slight pretext and a minor rationale such as this in order to render Eretz Yisrael pure.

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

The Gemara is uncertain: What is the law if he

examined

from

twenty cubits

on one side of the graveyard,

and did not find

any additional graves—

What

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

Rav Mesharsheya said:

He has only that

graveyard

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

The Gemara wonders:

What is the reason?

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 rendered Eretz Yisrael pure

so that there would be no concern of ritual impurity in it.

Since the compiler of the Mishna mentioned, with regard to the ritual impurity of an unknown depth, that “one presumed impure remains impure,” the tanna cites two additional mishnayot in which a distinction is made in the laws of ritual impurity between one who had a presumption of impurity or a presumption of gonorrhea, and one who did not.

Mishna:

With regard to every uncertainty involving leprous lesions:

If the uncertainty existed

at the outset,

and

before he had become subject to impurity,

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

Then his uncertainty is

pure,

because of the principle, “Establish the person according to his presumption,” since he had been pure; and in every uncertainty, the matter is maintained according to its initial presumption.

But if

after he had become subject

already

to impurity,

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

Then

his uncertainty is impure,

because we must establish him according to his presumption of impurity.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda asked in the name of Rav:

From where are these matters?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

that is, Rav Yehuda himself explained the rationale of the matter:

the verse says: “

To render him pure or to render him impure,”

since the verse began with purity,

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

The questioner thought that Rav Yehuda’s statement was intended to explain the rationale of our Mishna, which rendered a doubtful lesion pure when he had not yet become subject to impurity. Therefore, he objected:

If so,

if the tanna of our Mishna holds by this exposition, the following difficulty arises:

Even after he had become subject to impurity as well,

he should have said that

his uncertainty is pure;

for the verse could not have been needed to render pure one who had not yet become subject to impurity, since logic dictates that he should be rendered pure, as it is an established principle everywhere: “Establish the matter according to its presumption ”; rather, certainly the verse came to render pure one who stands with a presumption of impurity.

By virtue of this objection, the Gemara explains Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Rav in a different manner:

Rather,

in our Mishna we do not need to seek a rationale at all, since we can say, “Establish the matter according to its presumption.” Therefore, in the first clause, where he had a presumption of purity, we maintain him according to his presumption and he is pure; whereas in the latter clause, where he had a presumption of impurity, we maintain him according to his presumption and he is impure.

And

when it was stated

this

statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,

it was not stated with reference to our Mishna, but

with reference to this [

another Mishna]

it was stated, to explain the rationale of the tanna who said there: Even when he stands with a presumption of impurity, he is pure; as we learned:

As we learned:

It is written in the passage concerning leprosy [Leviticus 13:9]: “When a person has a leprous affliction, he shall be brought to the kohen. And the kohen shall see, and so on, and if the white hair has turned white, and so on. It is an ancient leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the kohen shall declare him impure; he shall not confine him, for he is impure.” Thus, white hair in a baheret is a sign of impurity. And from the Torah’s statement, “and it has turned the hair white,” it is inferred that the baheret itself is what turned it white , as the Rosh explains; Rashi wrote in Ketubot 75b: For this is how the verse is written: “White hair in a baheret.”

If the baheret preceded the white hair,

then he is

impure; but if the white hair preceded the baheret,

then he is

pure.

And if there was a

doubt

as to which preceded the other, then he is

impure,

for example, when he had already become subject to impurity, having been declared a confirmed leper because of another lesion, and this doubt then arose in him.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is weakened.

And we explain:

What does “it is weakened” mean?

Rav Yehuda said: It is weakened, and he is pure,

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

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

Perhaps it is weakened and impure,

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

And concerning this,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

For

the verse says,

“

to render him pure or to render him impure,” since the verse began with purity.

A. If a man experienced one discharge of gonorrhea, this is merely like one who experienced a seminal emission, and he is impure with impurity lasting until evening.

B. If he experienced two discharges, he is a zav. He counts seven days, and if he experiences another discharge during those seven days, he nullifies his count, until he counts seven clean days, immerses, and becomes pure at nightfall.

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

D. A man becomes a zav through a white discharge, meaning a discharge from the organ, whereas a woman becomes a zava through a red discharge. If she sees blood for one or two days during certain days [the eleven days following her days of menstruation], she is a “minor zava” and observes one clean day corresponding to each day of impurity; and if she sees blood for three days, she is a “major zava,” whose law is like that of a zav who experienced three discharges: she counts seven clean days and brings an offering on the eighth day.

E. The discharge of a zav and the blood of a woman are both primary sources of ritual impurity and impart impurity through contact and carrying. Their saliva is likewise a primary source of ritual impurity. There are other liquids that are secondary derivatives of impurity, and there are liquids that are entirely pure [see all this in Maimonides, chapter 1 of Laws of Impurity of Lying and Sitting]; and our passage will explain the status of semen that emerged from a zav.

F. A woman, whether a minor zava or a major zava, is impure even if she saw blood involuntarily, and an involuntary sighting likewise nullifies her count. The law concerning a man is not so, for the Torah says: “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh,” implying: “from his flesh,” but not as a result of circumstances beyond his control. Our Mishna will explain which factors may be regarded as the cause of the discharge and are deemed an involuntary sighting, and it will explain which zav does not impart impurity through an involuntary discharge.

Mishna:

In seven ways

[matters]

one examines a zav,

in order to determine whether the discharge was caused by one of these factors, in which case it is an involuntary sighting and does not impart impurity.

And when does one examine him?

Before he had become subject to gonorrhea,

before he experienced this sighting; that is, he is examined only for the first sighting or the second, since at the time he experienced these sightings he was not yet a zav.

These are the matters that one examines for, and if one of them indeed occurred, the sighting is attributed to it:

A.

Food;

B.

and drink;

C.

carrying;

D.

and jumping;

E.

and illness;

F.

and a sight;

G.

and contemplation.—

How so? If he ate excessively or drank a great deal, or if he ate food or drank beverages that cause a seminal emission, or if he carried a heavy load, or jumped from place to place—which includes being struck on his back—or if he was ill; or if he saw a woman and desired intercourse with her; or if he contemplated matters of intercourse, even though he did not contemplate intercourse with a woman whom he knows: if one of these occurred before he experienced a discharge of gonorrhea, the discharge is attributed to it and he does not impart impurity.

But

after he had become subject to gonorrhea,

having already experienced two sightings and having been examined and found not to have discharged as a result of an involuntary cause,

he is not examined

for the third sighting. Even if the third sighting was involuntary, he is impure and liable to bring an offering.

This is because there is supporting evidence that the sighting did not result from those factors, since he had already become a zav, as the Mishna explains below.

And the Mishna explains that in three matters a zav who had become subject to gonorrhea differs from one who had not become subject to gonorrhea:

A.

His involuntary discharge

of a zav, meaning a sighting caused by circumstances beyond his control, as explained above.

A.

And his uncertainty,

a sighting regarding which there is uncertainty whether it renders him impure [the Gemara will explain which uncertainty is under discussion].

And his semen

of the zav [the Gemara will explain this further]—

All these three

are impure

once he has become subject to gonorrhea, because

there is supporting evidence.

Since the compiler of the Mishna mentioned “there is supporting evidence,” he cited another law in which as well they said, “there is supporting evidence.”

One who strikes his fellow, and they assessed him—

the court assessed the injured man—

as liable to die,

that he would die as a result of this blow,

and his condition improved

that of the injured man

from what it had been

at the time of the blow, and they reassessed him as likely to live, and he

afterward

returned and

his condition worsened,

his condition

and he died—

Thus, the assailant is

liable

to receive the death penalty, for we attribute the eventual death to the assailant’s blow, even though in the meantime the victim’s condition improved.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: He is exempt

the assailant; because:

there is supporting indication

that he was ill and died as a result of the illness. For if he had died as a result of the blow, his condition would not have improved in the meantime.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Before he has acquired the status of a zav, he is examined in seven ways, so that it may be determined whether his emission was caused by an accident, etc.; once he has acquired the status of a zav, he is not examined

What is the source of this matter

that once he has acquired the status of a zav, even an emission caused by an accident renders him impure?

Rabbi Natan said:

For

the verse states:

At the conclusion of the passages concerning the zav, one who experiences a seminal emission, a menstruating woman, and a woman with a discharge, it states: “This is the law of the zav and of one from whom a seminal emission issues, rendering him impure thereby. And of the woman who is ill through her menstruation

and of the zav with his discharge

for male and female”—

This is expounded as follows: “And the zav” indicates one emission; “with his discharge” indicates a second emission; “for male”—meaning, until this point he has the status of a male, who does not become impure through an accidental emission; from this point onward:

for the third emission he was likened [

he was likened] the zav

to a female,

and just as a female with a discharge is rendered impure through an accidental emission, so too the third emission of a zav renders him impure even when it was caused by an accident.

The Gemara asks:

But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: With the

emission

third

one still

examines him,

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

with the

discharge

fourth—

which occurs during the counting days, during which it invalidates his count—

that he is not examined,

for this emission invalidates his count even when it was caused by an accident.

And what is Rabbi Eliezer’s rationale? After all, the third emission was likened to that of a female!?

Rather

the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer

with the

“et” words

disagree,

meaning: The basis of their dispute is whether the word “et” in “his discharge,” which appears in the same passage in which the Torah likened the zav to a female, is also expounded:

Rabbi Eliezer expounds the

“et” words,

and it follows that the verse grants him the status of a male for three emissions, while for the fourth the Torah likened him to a female, so that he becomes impure through an accidental emission.

And the Rabbis do not expound the

“et” words,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

His accidental emission and his uncertainty

and his seminal emission are impure, as there is supporting indication: