## Nazir Daf 66a

###### Nazir 66a:1
[Nazir 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:1)

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא תֵּימָא סָפֵק חֲזָא סָפֵק לָא חֲזָא. אֶלָּא וַדַּאי חֲזָא, סָפֵק מֵחֲמַת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, סָפֵק מֵחֲמַת רְאִיָּיה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Do not say** that it is **uncertain** whether he **saw** a discharge and **uncertain** whether he **did not see** one. The uncertainty is not with regard to whether he experienced a discharge at all. **Rather, he certainly saw a** discharge, but it is **uncertain** whether the discharge was **due to,** i.e., defined as, an emission of **semen,** and it is **uncertain** whether the discharge was **due to** the **sighting** of *ziva*. In this case, **once he has been confirmed as being ritually impure** as a *zav*, **his uncertain** case is also **impure.**


###### Nazir 66a:2
[Nazir 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:2)

שִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ טְמֵאָה. לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְמַגָּע — מִי גָּרַע מִשִּׁכְבַת זֶרַע דְּטָהוֹר? אֶלָּא זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל זָב מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **his semen is impure.** The Gemara asks: With regard **to what** *halakha* is the mishna stating that the semen of a *zav* is impure? **If we say** that this is referring **to** the impurity of **contact,** i.e., this semen renders one who touches it impure, there is no need to teach this *halakha*. **Is it** any **worse than the semen of a pure** man, which also imparts impurity through contact? **Rather,** the mishna is teaching that **the semen of a *zav* renders** people **impure** even **by carrying,** like the impurity of *ziva*.


###### Nazir 66a:3
[Nazir 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:3)

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לְהָא דְּאָמַר שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁל זָב מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא? אִילֵּימָא הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל זָב אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ בְּלֹא צִיחְצוּחֵי זִיבָה. אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָא אָמַר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם צִיחְצוּחֵי זִיבָה, אֲבָל בְּעֵינֵיהּ, לָא אָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who did you hear that said that** the **semen of a *zav* renders** one **impure by carrying? If we say** it is **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: The semen of a *zav* does not render** one **impure by carrying, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It** does **render** one **impure by carrying, because it is impossible for** his semen **to be without droplets of *ziva*;** yet this source is no proof, as **even Rabbi Yehoshua said** that this semen imparts impurity by carrying **only due to the droplets of *ziva*** it contains. **However, he did not say** that semen **in its unadulterated** form renders people impure.


###### Nazir 66a:4
[Nazir 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** The mishna does not mean that the semen of a *zav* itself renders one impure by carrying. Rather, it comes **to say that one does not attribute** the *ziva* **to it.** Even if the man experienced a discharge within twenty-four hours of his ejaculation of semen, one does not say his discharge was triggered by a general weakening as a result of his seminal emission. Once the man has experienced two discharges of a *zav* he is an impure *zav*, and this third discharge is also considered *ziva*.


###### Nazir 66a:5
[Nazir 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:5)

סְבַר רַב פָּפָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר אַיְּידֵי חוּלְשָׁא הוּא דְּחָזֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא, וְהָתְנַן: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר מְטַמֵּא מִיָּד בְּזִיבָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ חוֹלִי גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When he was **before Rava, Rav Pappa thought to say** the following explanation for this *halakha*: **Since he sees** his discharges **out of** the **weakness** brought about from his previous *ziva*, it can be assumed that any later discharge, even one that follows a seminal emission, is *ziva*. **Rava said to him: But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Zavim* 2:3): **A convert who** has just **converted can immediately become impure as a *zav*.** Even if he had a seminal emission as a gentile, subsequently converted, and then experienced the discharge of a *zav*, one does not associate the discharge of a *zav* with the earlier emission of semen. Rather, it is treated as the first discharge of a *zav*. In this case there is no prior weakness of a *zav* to speak of, and nevertheless the convert is impure as a *zav*. Rav Pappa **said to** Rava: **There is no greater illness than this.** The very acceptance of mitzvot can be considered an illness, as the burden of mitzvot is a weighty matter. For this reason, one does not ascribe a discharge of a *zav* to the earlier emission of semen.


###### Nazir 66a:6
[Nazir 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:6)

אֶלָּא, תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע שֶׁל זָב מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא כׇּל מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Rather,** the possibility rejected earlier, that the mishna means that semen of a *zav* imparts impurity by carrying, **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The semen of a *zav* renders** one **impure by carrying** like the regular discharge of a *zav* **for** a twenty-four hour **period.** In other words, if a *zav* experienced a seminal emission within twenty-four hours of a *ziva*, the seminal emission does not impart impurity only through contact in the manner of the semen of a pure individual, but by carrying as well. **And Rabbi Yosei says** that it imparts impurity by carrying only on **its day,** i.e., if the seminal emission was before the evening of the day of the *ziva*. As opposed to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier, these *tanna’im* both maintain that the semen of a *zav* imparts impurity by carrying like *ziva* does.


###### Nazir 66a:7
[Nazir 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:7)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דִּשְׁמוּאֵל רָמֵי: כְּתִיב: ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה לָיְלָה״. וּכְתִיב: ״לִפְנוֹת עֶרֶב יִרְחַץ בַּמָּיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yosei **disagree?** What is the basis of their dispute? The Gemara answers: They disagree **with regard to** the following issue discussed **by Shmuel, as Shmuel raises a contradiction: It is written: “If there be among you any man who is not pure, by reason of that which chances him by night,** then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:11). This verse is applied to a *zav* who experienced a seminal emission. **And it is written: “When evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water,** and when the sun is down, he may come within the camp” (Deuteronomy 23:12).


###### Nazir 66a:8
[Nazir 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:8)

מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת דָּיֵיק מִ״לִּפְנוֹת עֶרֶב״, וְאִידַּךְ דָּיֵיק ״מִקְּרֵה לָיְלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dispute. **The one who says** that the semen of a *zav* imparts impurity by carrying **for** a twenty-four hour **period** after experiencing a *ziva* **infers from** the phrase **“when evening comes on”** that the period can involve two evenings, as “comes on” indicates another evening. If so, the semen imparts impurity by carrying for a full twenty-four hour period. **And the other** Sage, Rabbi Yosei, **infers** from the expression **“by reason of that which chances him by night”** that the seminal emission imparts impurity by carrying only until that night, i.e., until the end of the day on which the man experienced the *ziva*.


###### Nazir 66a:9
[Nazir 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:9)

וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לִּפְנוֹת עֶרֶב״, הָכְתִיב ״מִקְּרֵה לָיְלָה״! אָמַר לָךְ, אוֹרְחָא דְקֶרִי לֵמֵתֵיא בְּלֵילְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to **the one who says** that this *halakha* is derived from **“when evening comes on,” isn’t it written: “By reason of that which chances him by night”?** The Gemara answers: He could have **said to you** that this verse affords no proof, as it is referring to the usual case and **it is the manner of a seminal emission to occur at night.** Consequently, one cannot derive a *halakha* from this expression.


###### Nazir 66a:10
[Nazir 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָזִיר הָיָה שְׁמוּאֵל, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּמוֹרָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״. נֶאֱמַר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן ״וּמוֹרָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁמוּאֵל ״וּמוֹרָה״. מָה ״מוֹרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן — נָזִיר, אַף ״מוֹרָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בִּשְׁמוּאֵל — נָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The tractate concludes with an aggadic statement about nazirites. **Samuel** the prophet **was a nazirite, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Nehorai, as it was stated** that when Hannah, his mother, prayed for a son, she vowed: **“And no *mora* shall come upon his head”** (I Samuel 1:11). How is it derived that *mora* is an expression of naziriteship? **It is stated with regard to Samson: “And** no **razor [*mora*]** shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a nazirite to God” (Judges 13:5), **and it is stated: “And** no ***mora*,” with regard to Samuel. Just as** the term **“*mora*” that is stated with regard to Samson** means that he was **a nazirite, so too** the term **“*mora*” that is stated with regard to Samuel** indicates that he was **a nazirite.**


###### Nazir 66a:11
[Nazir 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא אֵין מוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי״, שֶׁכְּבָר הָיָה עָלָיו מוֹרָא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei said: But doesn’t** the word **“*mora*”** mean **nothing other** than the fear **of flesh and blood?** The word should be read as though it were written with an *alef*, and not a *heh*, so that it means fear. **Rabbi Nehorai said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go; if Saul hears it he will kill me”** (I Samuel 16:2). This verse indicates **that there was fear of flesh and blood upon** Samuel. Consequently, the term *mora* must be understood in accordance with its plain meaning of a razor. If so, Samuel was indeed a nazirite.


###### Nazir 66a:12
[Nazir 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/66a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְחִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav said to his son Ḥiyya:**