## Nazir Daf 64a

###### Nazir 64a:1
[Nazir 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:1)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי, כְּתִיב: ״בְּכׇל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ״, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹרֵץ, וּכְתִיב ״עַל הָאָרֶץ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? וַדַּאי מַגָּעוֹ — טָמֵא, סְפֵק מַגָּעוֹ — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason of the first *tanna*** for declaring that in all uncertain cases of floating impurity the person or item remains pure? **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says:** In the passage dealing with the impurity of creeping animals and the prohibition of eating them **it is written: “With any swarming thing that swarms”** (Leviticus 11:43), indicating that a carcass of a creeping animal renders items impure in **any place where it swarms. And it is written:** “All swarming things that swarm **upon the earth”** (Leviticus 11:42), indicating that it transmits impurity only if it is on the earth. **How so?** How can one reconcile these two verses? **Definite contact** with **it** renders one **impure;** one who has **uncertain contact** with **it,** e.g., the impurity is floating, remains **pure.**


###### Nazir 64a:2
[Nazir 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:2)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: כְּתִיב ״אַךְ מַעְיָן״, וּכְתִיב ״יִטְמָא״ (עַד הָעָרֶב), הָא כֵּיצַד? צָפָה בְּכֵלִים — טָמֵא, בְּקַרְקַע — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason** for his opinion? **Ulla said** that as **it is written: “Nevertheless a fountain** or a cistern in which there is a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36), this indicates that a creeping animal found in one of these places does not impart impurity. **And it is written** in the same verse: “He who touches their carcass **shall be impure** until evening,” which indicates that it does render one impure. **How so?** If the impurity was **floating** in water contained **in vessels,** the item it touched **is** rendered **impure,** but if the water was **in the ground** itself, e.g., in a spring or pit, the item it touched is **pure.**


###### Nazir 64a:3
[Nazir 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּיטָּלִין וְהַנִּגְרָרִין — סְפֵיקָן טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּמוּנָּחִין. וְהַנִּזְרָקִין — סְפֵיקָן טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** (*Tosefta*, *Teharot* 3:13): **All** items that impart impurity **that are carried** by human hand **or that are dragged** along are not considered floating impurities, despite the fact that they are in motion. Rather, in a case where there is **uncertainty** whether a carried or dragged item affected a person, the individual is rendered **impure,** because the items are considered **as though** they were **at rest. And** in the case of items **that are thrown** by people, in **uncertain** cases that pertain to them, the individual remains **pure.**


###### Nazir 64a:4
[Nazir 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:4)

חוּץ מִן כְּזַיִת הַמֵּת, וְהַמַּאֲהִיל עַל פְּנֵי טוּמְאָה, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מִלְּמַעְלָה כִּלְמַטָּה. לְאֵיתוֹיֵי זָב וְזָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is the *halakha*, **except for an olive-bulk** from **a corpse,** which transmits impurity through uncertain contact even if it was thrown; **and that which overlies impurity** when thrown, i.e., an item that might have been positioned over a corpse when it was thrown; **and anything that renders** items **above** it **impure like** it renders those **below** it impure. To what does this last clause refer? It comes **to include a *zav* and a *zava*,** who render items placed above and below them impure even without contact. If something thrown or floating might have come into contact with a *zav* or *zava*, it is impure.


###### Nazir 64a:5
[Nazir 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:5)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מֵת בִּכְלִי, וּכְלִי צָף עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ? בָּתַר כְּלִי אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָּתַר מִיתָא אָזְלִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this *halakha* of a floating impurity, **Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** If there is **a corpse in a vessel and the vessel is floating on water,** and one did not overlie it but might have touched it, **what is** the *halakha*? Do **we go according to** the floating **vessel or** do **we go according to** the **corpse,** which is resting on a solid surface?


###### Nazir 64a:6
[Nazir 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:6)

אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר בָּתַר כְּלִי אָזְלִינַן: מֵת עַל גַּבֵּי שֶׁרֶץ, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּהַאי טוּמְאַת עֶרֶב, וְהַאי טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, כְּמַאן דְּמַחֲתָא טוּמְאָה בִּכְלִי דָּמְיָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא טוּמְאָה סְמִיכְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If you say** that **we go according to the vessel** and one is rendered ritually impure, the following question arises: If **a corpse** is placed **on top of** the carcass of **a creeping animal,** which is floating on water, **what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **since this** impurity of a creeping animal is **an impurity for an evening,** i.e., it lasts one day, **and this** impurity imparted by a corpse is **an impurity for seven** days, **it is considered as though the impurity** imparted by a corpse **were placed in a vessel,** and he is impure? **Or, perhaps** the fact that both a corpse and a creeping animal impart impurity means that **it is** one **solid impurity,** and because the creeping animal is floating he is pure.


###### Nazir 64a:7
[Nazir 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:7)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר כְּמַאן דְּמַחֲתָא טוּמְאָה בִּכְלִי דָּמְיָא, וְטָמֵא וַדַּאי. שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי נְבֵלָה, וּנְבֵלָה צָפָה, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ טוּמְאַת עֶרֶב אִינּוּן — טוּמְאָה סְמִיכְתָּא הִיא. אוֹ דִילְמָא: הַאי כְּזַיִת וְהַאי כַּעֲדָשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that due to their different levels of impurity **it is considered as though the impurity were placed in a vessel and** therefore one is **definitely impure,** one can raise an additional dilemma. If **a creeping animal** is **atop** an unslaughtered **animal carcass and the animal carcass** is **floating,** then **what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **since they are both** examples of **an impurity for an evening, it is** considered a single **solid impurity, or perhaps** here too they are different, as **this** one, the carcass, renders items impure when it is the amount of **an olive-bulk, and this** one, the creeping animal, does so when it is the amount **of a lentil-bulk.** In that case, the animal carcass and the creeping animal should be considered separate items, and it is as though the impurity is placed in a vessel, and he is impure.


###### Nazir 64a:8
[Nazir 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:8)

שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי שֶׁרֶץ מַהוּ? הָנֵי וַדַּאי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא נִינְהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּמִפַּסְקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If in that case they are considered separate, then one can also ask: If **a creeping animal** is positioned **atop** another **creeping animal, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **these certainly** have the **same measurement** with regard to transmitting impurity, and that they consequently should be viewed as a single floating items, which means he is pure? **Or, perhaps, since** they **are separate from each other** and are not in fact a single item, they are **not** considered as one unit.


###### Nazir 64a:9
[Nazir 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:9)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר: שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי שֶׁרֶץ כֵּיוָן דְּמִפַּסְקִי מֵהֲדָדֵי כְּמַאן דְּמַנְּחָא בִּכְלִי דָּמֵי, שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי נְבֵלָה שֶׁנִּימּוֹחָה, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּנִימּוֹחָה הָוְיָא לַיהּ מַשְׁקֶה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא הַאי אוּכְלָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that in the case of **a creeping animal atop a creeping animal, since** they **are separate from each other, it is considered as though** the impurity **were placed in a vessel** and is not floating, one can raise an additional dilemma. If **a creeping animal** was placed **atop an animal carcass that has dissolved, what is** the *halakha*? Do we say that **since it has dissolved it has become** like **liquid,** and therefore it is as though the creeping animal were floating on liquid? **Or, perhaps this** carcass **is** still considered **food,** rather than a liquid, and the creeping animal is on a solid surface.


###### Nazir 64a:10
[Nazir 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/64a:10)

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר דְּאוּכְלָא הוּא, שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, מַהוּ? וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר כֵּיוָן דְּמִיתְעַקְּרָא הָוְיָא לַהּ כִּי אוּכְלָא, שֶׁרֶץ עַל גַּבֵּי מֵי חַטָּאת וּמֵי חַטָּאת צָפִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ? לָא יָדְעִינַן, תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that** a dissolved animal carcasses **is** considered **food,** one can raise an additional dilemma. If **a creeping animal** was placed **on top of semen,** which is certainly liquid, **what is** the *halakha*? Is this creeping animal considered a floating impurity? **And if you say** that **once** semen **is ejaculated** from the body **it is considered like food** rather than drink, as it is viscous, one can raise an additional dilemma. If **a creeping animal** was placed **atop waters of purification,** i.e., the water into which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed, which becomes highly viscous, **and** the **waters of purification are floating on water, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara responds: **We do not know** the answer to any of these questions, and therefore the dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.