Nazir 66a — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

to explain what we learned, that one whose case had already become one of ziva and whose status is uncertain is impure:

Do not say that

the uncertainty under discussion is:

whether he saw or did not see—

whether he saw a third sighting or did not see one; for example, he saw zov on his garment but did not know whether it came from the second sighting or from the third sighting; and the tanna says that since his case had already become one of ziva, he is impure and is deemed a zav who had three sightings, making him liable to bring an offering—

For in such a case he is certainly not liable to bring an offering.

Rather,

this is the case in which we are stringent concerning his uncertain status once his case had already become one of ziva:

That he was a zav during the days of counting seven clean days, and he certainly saw

a sighting

that is supposed to invalidate the days of his counting, except that he found both ziva and semen on his garment, and the uncertainty is:

whether it was because of semen

that he saw—that is, whether semen was mixed with the ziva, in which case the sighting invalidates only one day—

or whether it was because of the sighting,

that is, whether no semen was mixed with the ziva, but he saw ziva separately and semen separately, in which case his sighting invalidates seven days.

And

since his case had become one of impurity,

as he was already impure at the time of this sighting,

his uncertain status is impure.

We learned in the Mishna:

His semen is impure [

his inadvertent emission and his uncertain emission, and “his semen is impure” ]:

The Gemara is astonished; the Gemara asks:

For what purpose—

in what respect is the semen of a zav whose case had already become one of ziva impure?

If you say, for

the purpose of rendering his semen impure through

contact?

This cannot be said, because:

If so, it would imply that when his case had not become one of impurity, his semen does not render one impure through contact. But

is

his semen

inferior to the semen of a ritually pure person

[which issued from a pure person], which renders one impure through contact!?

Rather,

say that the intention of the Mishna is to state that

the semen of a zav renders one impure

even

through carrying,

since his case had become one of ziva; whereas if his case had not become one of ziva, his semen would not render one impure through carrying, like the semen of a ritually pure person, which renders one impure through contact but not through carrying.

This too cannot be said, because:

Who is the one from whom you heard this statement: The semen of a zav renders one impure through carrying—and who is the tanna of our Mishna whom you wish to say holds that the semen of a zav renders one impure through carrying!?

Разве есть такой таннай нашей Мишны, о котором можно сказать, что он придерживается мнения: семя человека с заболеванием истечением делает нечистым при переносе?!

If you say,

perhaps say:

This tanna

[is Rabbi Yehoshua],

as it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The semen of a zav does not render one impure through carrying.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It renders one impure through carrying,

and

because it is impossible for

the semen of a zav

not to contain traces of zov.

This cannot be said, because:

Even Rabbi Yehoshua said

that it renders one impure

only because of the traces of zov

mixed into it,

but in itself

[semen as it is]—

he did not say so;

that is, the reason for the impurity is only the zov mixed into it, whereas our Mishna implies that his semen renders one impure on account of its own status.

Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

What we learned in our Mishna, that the semen of a zav renders one impure, does not mean that it itself renders one impure—

Rather,

it means that

if a zav experienced his third sighting within twenty-four hours after experiencing an emission of semen,

one does not attribute

[to the semen] the ziva.

That is, one who experienced a seminal emission and then, within twenty-four hours, experienced ziva is not impure, as explained in the Mishna in tractate Zavim. Our Mishna comes to teach that if his case had already become one of ziva, even a sighting that occurred within twenty-four hours of a seminal emission renders him impure. The reason for this law is explained later in the sugya.

The Gemara rejects Rav Adda bar Ahava’s explanation of our Mishna:

For

Rav Pappa thought to say before Rava,

Rav Pappa held—and said this to Rava—as the reason why ziva that occurs within twenty-four hours of a seminal emission does not render one impure, as explained in the Mishna in Zavim, that we say:

He saw it on account of weakness

[following the weakness caused by the seminal emission, he therefore saw ziva], and this sighting is consequently an involuntary sighting, which does not render one impure.

And

Rava said to him

to Rav Pappa, rejecting this reason:

But we learned:

A convert who converted becomes impure immediately through ziva,

even if he had experienced a seminal emission in his gentile state within the preceding twenty-four hours,

and

if, as you say, the reason why a sighting of ziva within twenty-four hours is not impure

why?

And

this—

the seminal emission that he experienced in his gentile state—

could not be a greater illness than this,

and the convert too should not become impure through an involuntary sighting; if so, what difference does it make that the cause of the involuntary emission occurred while he was in his gentile state!?

Rather, the reason for the law is a derivation from the verse, and a gentile, whose seminal emissions are ritually pure, does not exempt a subsequent ziva.

And since that is so, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s words too are rejected, for since it is by decree of the verse that a sighting does not render one impure within twenty-four hours of a seminal emission, what difference is there whether his case had become one of impurity or whether it had not become one of impurity?

Rather,

the Gemara returns to the earlier explanation of our Mishna, that the issue concerns the impurity of semen with regard to carrying—

And as for the difficulty you raised—that we have not found anyone who says that semen renders one impure through carrying, for even Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer and rendered it impure through carrying, does not render the semen itself impure—this is not difficult, because:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

There is a dispute between tannaim concerning this matter, and the tannaim in the beraita disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and maintain that even the semen of a zav sometimes renders one impure through carrying. Our Mishna follows the tannaim of the beraita.

As it was taught:

The semen of a zav renders one impure through carrying for the entire twenty-four-hour period

following his experience of the sighting of ziva.

And Rabbi Yosei says:

The semen renders one impure only

on the day

of the sighting of ziva, but not for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

Our Mishna too is discussing a case in which the semen issued from him close to the sighting, according to each authority in accordance with his own position.

Once the Gemara has cited the beraita, it explains it:

Over what do they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei?

Over the teaching of Shmuel!

Shmuel juxtaposed

the verses in order to resolve their apparent contradiction:

It is written

[Deuteronomy 23:11]: “If there is among you a man who is not pure from a nocturnal seminal emission, he shall go outside the camp; he shall not enter the camp. And toward evening he shall wash in water, and when the sun sets he may enter the camp.”

And since it is written:

“If there is among you a man who is not pure,”

this implies: “who is not pure” in general—that is, he is impure with another impurity issuing from his body, analogous to a seminal emission; and what is that? Ziva. And it is written: “[who is not pure among you]”

from a seminal emission,

which implies semen that he experienced after ziva; and it is written:

“nocturnal,”

which is superfluous. Rather, conclude from this that a seminal emission experienced during the night following ziva has the status of ziva and renders one impure through carrying—

And it is written:

“Toward evening he shall wash in water,”

which implies even after evening has passed, namely, for the entire twenty-four-hour period.

The one who says—

the first tanna—

the entire twenty-four-hour period derives it from

“toward evening.”

And the other—

Rabbi Yosei—

derives it from

“from a nocturnal seminal emission.”

And

we challenge

the one who says,

who expounds

“toward evening,”

and

it is written

“from a nocturnal seminal emission”!?

He can say to you: The first tanna, who derives the law from “toward evening” and not from “from a nocturnal seminal emission,” maintains that “nocturnal” is not superfluous for a derivation, because

первый таннай, выводящий закон из слов «под вечер», а не из слов «из-за ночного семяизвержения»: слово

it is the usual manner of a seminal emission to occur at night

[the usual time for a seminal emission is at night].

Mishna:

Samuel was a Nazir, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai,

that is, Rabbi Nehorai would say that Samuel was a Nazir.

As it is stated

[I Samuel 1:11]: “And she [Hannah, Samuel’s mother] vowed a vow and said, etc.: If You will indeed look upon the affliction of Your maidservant, and remember me and not forget Your maidservant, and grant Your maidservant male offspring, I shall give him to the Lord all the days of his life,

and a razor shall not come upon his head.”

And we learn this through a gzera shava:

It is stated concerning Samson

[Judges 13:3]: “And an angel of the Lord appeared to the woman [the wife of Manoah] and said to her: Behold now, you are barren and have not borne, etc. For you shall conceive and bear a son,

and a razor

shall not come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazir of God from the womb.”

And it is stated concerning Samuel:

“And a razor

shall not come upon his head.”

Just as

“a razor”

stated concerning Samson

means that he would be

a Nazir,

as it is stated: “And a razor shall not come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazir of God.”

So too,

“a razor”

stated concerning Samuel—

a Nazir.

Rabbi Yosei

said to him

Rabbi Yosei

to Rabbi Nehorai:

But “moreh” refers only to one of flesh and blood,

that is, “moreh” stated concerning Samuel means that he would not be subject to fear of flesh and blood!?

Rabbi Nehorai said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

But it has already been stated:

“And Samuel said: How can I go? Saul will hear and kill me,”

so

he was already subject to fear of flesh and blood;

and therefore, necessarily, “moreh” stated concerning him means Nazirut.

Gemara:

Rav said to Hiyya his son

[Rav said to Hiyya, his son]: