## Nazir Daf 65b

###### Nazir 65b:1
[Nazir 65b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:1)

אָמַר רָבָא: בָּדַק וּפִנָּה, בָּדַק וּפִנָּה, בְּדַק וְאַשְׁכַּח — לָא הַאי מְפַנֵּי לֵיהּ גַּבֵּי הָנָךְ תְּרֵי, וְלָא הָנֵי תְּרֵי לְגַבַּי הַאי חַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** With regard to one who **examined,** found a corpse, **and removed** it from its place, and again **examined** nearby, found another corpse, **and removed** it from its place as well, if he **examined** yet again **and discovered** a third corpse, **he does not move this** third one **alongside these two** he has already moved, as he now knows that this was a graveyard and the corpses were buried there intentionally. **And he does not** return **these two alongside this one** either, as he is not obligated to restore the corpses to their prior locations after they have been reburied.


###### Nazir 65b:2
[Nazir 65b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה רְשׁוּת לִפְנוֹת, מְפַנֶּה לְהוֹן. וְלִישַׁוִּינְהוּ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִילָּא, מָצְאוּ וְטִיהֲרוּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **Rava said: Since permission was granted to move** the first and second corpses, one may therefore **move them** all, including the third one. The Gemara asks: **And let us deem them** part of **a graveyard.** Since three corpses were found buried together, there might be others in the vicinity. **Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure.** Since at that point there was just one corpse, the Sages were lenient and were not concerned about any further impurity. The Sages wished to avoid uncertain impurity because people were careful to observe the *halakhot* of ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and additional cases of uncertain impurity would be complicated to observe.


###### Nazir 65b:3
[Nazir 65b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:3)

בָּדַק מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה וְלֹא מָצָא, מַאי? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַב: שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִילָּא מָצְאוּ וְטִיהֲרוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: If one **examined twenty cubits** from the location of those corpses **and did not find** anything, **what is** the *halakha*? **Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says** that **Rav says:** This is **a graveyard.** Those three corpses compose the graveyard and there is no concern for others. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this ruling? Why is there no concern that there might be many more corpses in the surrounding area? Once again **Reish Lakish said: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure.** Eretz Yisrael is deemed pure in a case of uncertainty.


###### Nazir 65b:4
[Nazir 65b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל סְפֵק נְגָעִים בַּתְּחִילָּה, טָהוֹר — עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה — סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Any** case of **uncertainty** with regard to **leprous sores** is **initially** deemed **pure until it is established that** it is a case **of ritual impurity. Once** it **has been determined** to be a case **of impurity, uncertainty** concerning **it is** deemed **impure.**


###### Nazir 65b:5
[Nazir 65b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָמַר קְרָא ״לְטַהֲרוֹ אוֹ לְטַמְּאוֹ״, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח [בּוֹ] הַכָּתוּב בְּטׇהֳרָה תְּחִילָּה. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה נָמֵי סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: The verse states:** “This is the law of the plague of leprosy…**to pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure”** (Leviticus 13:59). **Since the verse opened with purity first,** this teaches that any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure. The Gemara asks: **If so,** if the *halakha* is based on this verse, then **even once** it **has been determined** to be a case **of impurity, uncertainty** concerning **it** should be deemed **pure as well,** as this interpretation of the verse should apply to all cases of uncertainty with regard to leprosy.


###### Nazir 65b:6
[Nazir 65b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:6)

אֶלָּא, כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אַהָא אִיתְּמַר: אִם בַּהֶרֶת קָדְמָה לְשֵׂעָר לָבָן — טָמֵא, וְאִם שֵׂעָר לָבָן קוֹדֵם לַבַּהֶרֶת — טָהוֹר. סָפֵק — טָמֵא. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: כִּיהָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when** this statement, **that Rav Yehuda** said that **Rav said, was stated, it was stated with regard to the following** dispute in a mishna concerning an uncertain leprous sore (*Nega’im* 4:11): **If** the **snow-white leprous sore [*baheret*],** which is one sign of leprosy, **preceded** the **white hair,** which is another sign, **he is impure.** This *halakha* is stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 13:3). **And if** the **white hair preceded** the ***baheret*** he is **pure,** as this is not considered a sign of impurity. If there is **uncertainty** as to which came first, he is **impure. And Rabbi Yehoshua said: *Keiha*.**


###### Nazir 65b:7
[Nazir 65b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:7)

מַאי ״כִּיהָה״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כִּיהָה וְטָהוֹר. וְדִילְמָא כִּיהָה וְטָמֵא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָמַר קְרָא ״לְטַהֲרוֹ אוֹ לְטַמְּאוֹ״. הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּטׇהֳרָה תְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of ***keiha*? Rav Yehuda said:** Rabbi Yehoshua **pronounced** the matter **unsolvable and** ruled it is **pure.** The Gemara further asks: **And perhaps** this means that he **pronounced** the matter **unsolvable and** ruled it is **impure? Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: The verse states: “To pronounce it pure or to pronounce it impure”** (Leviticus 13:59); **since the verse opened with purity first,** any case of uncertainty concerning leprous sores is deemed pure.


###### Nazir 65b:8
[Nazir 65b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּשִׁבְעָה דְּרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְזִיבָה: בְּמַאֲכָל וּבְמִשְׁתֶּה, בְּמַשָּׂא וּבִקְפִיצָה, וּבְחוֹלִי, וּבְמַרְאֶה, וּבְהִירְהוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** This mishna discusses another case that includes the statement: There is a basis to anticipate the matter. **One examines a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*] in seven ways, as long as he has not been confirmed as** having **a gonorrhea-like discharge [*ziva*].** With regard to an individual’s second such discharge, before he has been established as a greater *zav*, one examines to see whether there may have been a particular trigger of his discharge. One examines him **with regard to food and with regard to drink,** in case the discharge might have been the result of overeating or excess drinking; **with regard to a burden,** as it might have been caused by the weight of a heavy burden; **and with regard to jumping,** in case he jumped and this led to the discharge; **and with regard to sickness; and with regard to** an arousing **sight; and with regard to** the **thought** of a woman.


###### Nazir 65b:9
[Nazir 65b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:9)

מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לְזִיבָה — אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אוֹנְסוֹ וּסְפֵיקוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ — טְמֵאִים. שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Once he has been confirmed as** having **a *ziva*,** after two definite discharges of *ziva*, **one no** longer **examines him** in this way, as any discharge is deemed impure. If one experiences three discharges of *ziva*, he is obligated to bring an offering following his purification. Accordingly, **his** discharge that was due to **circumstances beyond his control,** i.e., for one of the seven reasons listed above, **and his** discharge about which it is **uncertain** if it is *ziva*, **and** even **his semen,** which is not usually considered the discharge of a *zav*, **are** all **impure.** Why is this so? It is **because there is a basis for** anticipating **the matter.** Once he has the status of a *zav*, it can be assumed that subsequent discharges are of *ziva* as well.


###### Nazir 65b:10
[Nazir 65b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:10)

הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה, וְהֵקֵל מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה, לְאַחַר מִכָּאן הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת — חַיָּיב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages similarly taught: With regard to **one who strikes another** with heavy blows, **and** doctors **assessed** that **he would die** as a result of the beating, **but his** health **improved from what it was,** so that they then determined that he would not die from his injuries, and **afterward** his condition **worsened and he died,** the one who struck him is **liable** to receive court-imposed capital punishment, as it is assumed that the victim’s death was caused by the assault. **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** He is **exempt, because there is a basis for** anticipating **the matter.** Since the victim began to recover during his illness, it is reasonable to assume that his death was caused by a factor other than the assault.


###### Nazir 65b:11
[Nazir 65b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:11)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ״, לִרְאִיָּה שְׁלִישִׁית אִיתַּקַּשׁ לִנְקֵיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived, that one examines a *zav* before he has been confirmed as having a *ziva*, but not after? **Rabbi Natan says** that **the verse states: “And the *zav* who has an issue [*zav et zovo*],** whether it is a man or a woman” (Leviticus 15:33). This teaches that after two discharges, corresponding to the words *zav* and *zovo*, with regard **to the third sighting,** when one is already a *zav*, the verse **juxtaposes** the *halakha* of a male to that **of a female:** Just as it makes no difference in the case of a female whether her discharge of menstrual blood was triggered by an external factor, as she is ritually impure regardless, once a male *zav* has the status of impurity, one no longer examines him to see if his discharge was triggered by an external factor.


###### Nazir 65b:12
[Nazir 65b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרְבִיעִית אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ! אֶלָּא בְּאֶתִּים קָמִיפַּלְגִי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דָּרֵישׁ אֶתִּים. וְרַבָּנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁי אֶתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a mishna (*Zavim* 2:2) that **Rabbi Eliezer says: For the third** discharge **one** still **examines him; for the fourth** discharge **one does not examine him.** Where does the verse allude to the fourth discharge? The Gemara answers: **Rather, they disagree with regard to** instances of the word **“*et*,”** i.e., whether or not the word “*et*” teaches an additional *halakha*, or whether it is written purely for syntactical reasons. **Rabbi Eliezer expounds** instances of the word **“*et*,”** and therefore he counts the phrase “*zav et zovo*” as three words referring to three discharges. **And the Rabbis do not expound** instances of the word **“*et*,”** which means that in their opinion this verse alludes to only two discharges.


###### Nazir 65b:13
[Nazir 65b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/65b:13)

אוֹנְסוֹ וּסְפֵיקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **his** discharge that was due to **circumstances beyond his control, and his** discharge about which it is **uncertain** if it is *ziva*, are considered impure.