נזיר סג

נזיר סג

מַתְנִי׳ נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא, אִם טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — סוֹתֵר, וְאִם טוּמְאַת תְּהוֹם — אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּילַּח, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ — סוֹתֵר.

MISHNA: With regard to a nazirite who shaved for the conclusion of his naziriteship, and it later became known to him that during his naziriteship he was ritually impure from a corpse, if it was a known impurity, i.e., people were aware of the impurity when he became impure, he negates his entire naziriteship. And if it was ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths, one that was unknown at the time, he does not negate his naziriteship. If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship in either case.

כֵּיצַד? יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל בִּמְעָרָה וְנִמְצָא מֵת צָף עַל פִּי הַמְעָרָה — טָמֵא, נִמְצָא מְשׁוּקָּע בְּקַרְקַע הַמְּעָרָה,

The mishna asks: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure, as an openly visible corpse is a known impurity. What, then, is an impurity of the depths? This is referring to a case where the corpse was found sunk into the ground of the cave in such a manner that it was unknown.

יָרַד לְהָקֵר — טָהוֹר. לִיטָּהֵר מִטּוּמְאַת מֵת — טָמֵא. שֶׁחֶזְקַת טָמֵא — טָמֵא, וְחֶזְקַת טָהוֹר — טָהוֹר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר.

However, even here the circumstances of the case must be taken into account. If one descended not to immerse himself in the water, as he was ritually pure, but to cool himself, he remains pure. If he was impure and entered the water to purify himself from the impurity from a corpse, he is impure. The reason is that something that has the presumptive status of impurity remains impure, and something that has the presumptive status of purity is pure, as there is a basis for the matter. It is reasonable that items or people retain their presumptive status.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם״, ״עָלָיו״ — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לוֹ.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that there is a difference between known and unknown impurity? Rabbi Eliezer said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him” (Numbers 6:9). The emphasis provided by the term “beside him” indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure. However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחֹקָה״. כִּי דֶרֶךְ: מָה דֶּרֶךְ בְּגִלּוּי, אַף כֹּל בְּגִלּוּי.

Reish Lakish said a different source: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “Any man of you who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away” (Numbers 9:10). The word “road” is juxtaposed in the verse to the term “ritually impure,” indicating that the impurity is like a road. Just as a road is in the open, so too, every impurity is in the open. It must be a known impurity.

וְאֶלָּא הָדִתְנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל מַכִּירָהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.

The Gemara objects: But consider that which we learned in the Tosefta (Zavim 2:9): Which is the ritual impurity imparted by a grave in the depths? It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. This type of impurity is permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal offering. However, if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כִּי דֶרֶךְ — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר — בִּמְחֻוֶּורֶת לוֹ, כִּי מַכִּירָהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם מַאי הָוֵי?

The Gemara states its question: Granted, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the verse that states that ritual impurity is like a road, it is fine, as an item known to someone in the world can be compared to a road. However, according to the one who says that this halakha is derived from the term “beside him,” i.e., it is referring to an impurity that is clear to him, if one person at the other end of the earth is aware of this impurity, what of it? It was unknown to the nazirite himself.

וְתוּ, הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב לְרׇחְבָּהּ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, בִּתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא, בְּנָזִיר וּבַעֲשִׂיַּית פֶּסַח — טָהוֹר. מַאי שְׁנָא? אֶלָּא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

And furthermore, consider that which is taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, i.e., it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible for the passerby to avoid becoming impure by passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure. Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma. However, with regard to both being a nazirite and being one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure. What is different about these situations? Rather, it must be that the halakha of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths is learned as a tradition and not from the verses, which are cited merely in support.

אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּילַּח וְכוּ׳. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: תִּגְלַחַת מְעַכֶּבֶת.

§ The mishna taught that if a nazirite discovered he was ritually impure before he shaved, he negates his naziriteship even if he was rendered impure by impurity of the depths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this opinion? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is Rabbi Eliezer, who says that shaving is indispensable to the completion of one’s naziriteship. Consequently, if he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he became impure during his naziriteship, and he negates the period he has observed.

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: נִטְמָא בְּתוֹךְ מְלֹאת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר מְלֹאת, מַהוּ? בָּתַר יְדִיעָה אָזְלִינַן, וִידִיעָה אַחַר מְלֹאת הִיא, אוֹ לָא? וּלְמַאי: לְמִיסְתַּר?

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who became impure during the full term of the regular days of his naziriteship but his impurity became known to him only after the full term but before he shaved? Perhaps we go according to his knowledge, and it is a case of knowledge after the full term, or perhaps the halakha is not determined by the time of his awareness but by the actual time of the impurity, which occurred during his naziriteship. The Gemara adds: And with regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? It was with regard to his possible negation of the period he observed as a nazirite: Does he negate his naziriteship, or is he considered to have contracted impurity after the completion of his term, in which case he need not start his naziriteship afresh?

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּילַּח — בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ סוֹתֵר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיתְיְדַע לֵיהּ בְּתוֹךְ מְלֹאת — צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא לָאו, לְאַחַר מְלֹאת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: If he discovered he was impure before he shaved, he negates the days of his naziriteship in either case. The Gemara seeks to clarify this: What are the circumstances of this case? When exactly did he find out about the impurity? If it became known to him during the full term of his naziriteship, need this be said, that he negates the previous days? After all, he has yet to complete his naziriteship vow. Rather, is it not referring to a case when the impurity was discovered after the full term of his naziriteship? Conclude from the mishna that he negates the days of his naziriteship even if he discovered the impurity after the completion of his term.

וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ: כּוּלּוֹ סוֹתֵר אוֹ שִׁבְעָה סוֹתֵר? לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּכוּלּוֹ סוֹתֵר. וְאִי לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל אַחַר מְלֹאת — שִׁבְעָה סוֹתֵר!

The Gemara continues to analyze the aforementioned case. And you can still raise the dilemma: Does he negate the entire period of his naziriteship or does he negate just seven days? The Gemara asks: According to whom is this dilemma raised? If we say this dilemma is referring to the opinion of the Rabbis (see 16b), it is obvious that he negates it all, as they maintain that even a nazirite who becomes impure after the completion of his naziriteship must observe another thirty days. And if it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, his ruling with regard to any impurity after the full term of his term is that one negates only seven days.

אָמַר לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי, כִּי נִטְמָא אַחַר מְלֹאת, וְהַאי לִפְנֵי מְלֹאת הוּא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דִּידִיעָה אַחַר מְלֹאת הִיא?

The Gemara responds: The one who raised this dilemma could have said to you: This statement of Rabbi Eliezer that a nazirite negates a mere seven days applies only if he became impure after the full term of his naziriteship, but this one became impure before the end of the full term, and therefore he negates the entire period. Or perhaps it is different here, as it is a case of knowledge that came to light after the full term of his naziriteship.

וּמִינַּהּ: קָתָנֵי בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ סוֹתֵר, וְלָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

The Gemara answers: And one can resolve the dilemma from this mishna itself. The mishna teaches that if the nazirite discovered he was impure before he shaved he negates his naziriteship in either case. And it does not distinguish between cases where this happened before the end of the full term or after it. This indicates that in any case he negates only seven days.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּטָל לְרׇחְבָּהּ שֶׁל דֶּרֶךְ, לִתְרוּמָה — טָמֵא, וּבְנָזִיר וּבְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — טָהוֹר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר,

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta, Zavim 2:8): In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, with regard to teruma the passerby is impure. But with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, the passerby is pure, as it is considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. In what case is this statement said, that one is impure with regard to partaking of teruma? It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse.

אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר — אַף לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר.

But if he has space to pass by, then even with regard to teruma he is pure. This is because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure, and there is a principle that if an uncertainty arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or item in the public domain, the person or item is considered pure.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ שָׁלֵם. אֲבָל מְשׁוּבָּר אוֹ מְפוֹרָק, אֲפִילּוּ אֵין מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בֵּין פִּרְקִין עָבַר. וּבְקֶבֶר, אֲפִילּוּ מְשׁוּבָּר וּמְפוֹרָק — טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקֶּבֶר מְצָרְפוֹ.

Similarly, in what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one finds the corpse whole. However, if it is broken or dismembered he is pure, even if there is no space to pass by. The reason is that we suspect that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them. This applies when he finds the corpse out in the open. But if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure. This is because the grave joins the parts into one unit and renders him impure if he passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו. אֲבָל טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב — טָמֵא. לְפִי שֶׁמְּהַלֵּךְ בְּרַגְלָיו — אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְשֶׁלֹּא יָסִיט וְשֶׁלֹּא יַאֲהִיל. טָעוּן אוֹ רָכוּב — אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע וְשֶׁלֹּא יָסִיט וְשֶׁלֹּא יַאֲהִיל.

The baraita adds: In what case is this statement said, i.e., that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure? It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot. However, if he was loaded with a heavy burden or was riding an animal, he is impure. This is because in the case of one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it, whereas in the case of one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line, or one riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch the corpse and will not move it and will not pass over it.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּטוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. אֲבָל טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה — שְׁלׇשְׁתָּן טְמֵאִים.

In what case is this statement said, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal offering are considered pure? It is said with regard to impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if the source of impurity was known to others but not to the individual who became impure, all three of them, i.e., a nazirite, one performing the ritual of the Paschal offering, and the one who wishes to partake of teruma, are impure.

וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם — כֹּל שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירָהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. מַכִּירָהּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם — אֵין זוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.

The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered to impart impurity of the depths? Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth. But if even one individual is aware of it, even if that person is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity imparted by a grave in the depths.

הָיָה טָמוּן בְּתֶבֶן אוֹ בִּצְרוֹרוֹת — הֲרֵי זוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם. בַּיַּמִּים וּבָאֲפֵילָה וּבִנְקִיקֵי הַסְּלָעִים — אֵין זוֹ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם.

The baraita continues: To ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account. If the body was concealed in hay or in pebbles, so the person might have died in an avalanche, it is likely that the corpse had never been found; this is impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. However, if it was found in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity imparted by a grave in the depths. Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it.

וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד.

The baraita concludes: And the Sages said that the leniency of impurity imparted by a grave in the depths applies only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of impurity.

כֵּיצַד יָרַד. צָפָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לְעִנְיַן שֶׁרֶץ, דְּתַנְיָא: סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה, בֵּין בְּכֵלִים, בֵּין בְּקַרְקַע — טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בְּכֵלִים טְמֵאָה, בְּקַרְקַע טְהוֹרָה.

§ The mishna taught: How does one differentiate between a known and an unknown impurity? If a nazirite descended to immerse in a cave, and a corpse was found floating at the mouth of the cave, he is impure. The Gemara comments: A floating impurity does not render a person or item impure in the case of a carcass of a creeping animal. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 5:6): With regard to the case of uncertain impurity, where an item might have touched something impure that was floating, either in water in a vessel or in water in the ground, e.g., a well, the item is pure. Rabbi Shimon says: If the impurity was floating in water that was in a vessel, the item is impure; if the impurity was in water in the ground, it is pure.