## Nazir Daf 63a

###### Nazir 63a:1
[Nazir 63a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:1)

**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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Nazir 63a:2
[Nazir 63a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 63a:3
[Nazir 63a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 63a:4
[Nazir 63a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 63a:5
[Nazir 63a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 63a:6
[Nazir 63a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nazir 63a:7
[Nazir 63a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 63a:8
[Nazir 63a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 63a:9
[Nazir 63a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 63a:10
[Nazir 63a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?