## Nazir Daf 63b

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

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.

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ מָקוֹם לַעֲבוֹר — אַף לִתְרוּמָה טָהוֹר.

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


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


###### Nazir 63b:11
[Nazir 63b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63b:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 63b:12
[Nazir 63b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63b:12)

וְלֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 63b:13
[Nazir 63b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/63b:13)

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

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