Talmud Nazir (E)

removed it, [and then] searched [again] and found [a third corpse], he must not remove this one [for
reburial] with the other two,
2
 nor the other two [for reburial] with this one.
3
 Others say that Raba
said: As permission had been given to remove [the others],
4
 he may remove them [all].
5
 But why
should not [the field] become a graveyard site?
6
 — Resh Lakish said: [The Rabbis] seized upon any
pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean.
7
 
    Suppose he searched [beyond it]
8
 for twenty cubits [in one direction only]
9
 and did not find
[another corpse], what is the law?
10
 — R. Monashya b. Jeremiah, citing Rab, replied: This is the
graveyard site.
11
 What is the reason [that we say this?]
12
 — Resh Lakish said: They seized on any
pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean.
 
    MISHNAH. EVERY DOUBTFUL CASE OF [LEPROUS] DISEASE
13
 ENCOUNTERED FOR
THE FIRST TIME BEFORE UN CLEANNESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
14
 IS CLEAN.
15
AFTER UNCLEANNESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED DOUBTFUL CASES ARE UNCLEAN.
16
 
    GEMARA. How do we know this?
17
 — Rab Judah citing Rab, said: The verse says, to pronounce
it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.
18
 Scripture mentions cleanness first.
19
 In that case even after
uncleanness has been established, doubtful cases should be clean?
20
 — We must therefore say that
this dictum of Rab, quoted by R. Judah was uttered in connection with the following.
21
 [A Mishnah
says:] If the bright spot
22
 appears before the white hair,
23
 he is unclean, but if the white hair appears
before the bright spot he is clean. If there is a doubt, he is unclean. R. Joshua said: It is doubtful.
24
What is meant by ‘it is doubtful’? — Rab Judah
25
 replied: It is doubtful and [consequently] clean.
26
May it not mean that it is doubtful and [consequently] unclean? — Rab Judah citing Rab said: The
verse says, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean;
27
 Scripture mentions cleanness first.
28
 
    MISHNAH. A PERSON SUFFERING FROM A FLUX IS EX AMINED REGARDING SEVEN
THINGS,
29
 BEFORE THE PRESENCE OF GONORRHOEA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED,
30
 VIZ.:
— WITH REGARD TO FOOD,
31
 DRINK, BURDENS,
32
 LEAPING,
33
 SICKNESS, A VISION
34
OR AN IMPURE THOUGHT.
35
 ONCE GONORRHOEA IS ESTABLISHED, HE IS NO LONGER
EXAMINED. [FLUX RESULTING] FROM AN ACCIDENT
36
 TO HIM, DOUBTFUL [FLUX].
37
AND HIS ISSUE OF SEMEN ARE UNCLEAN, FOR THERE IS A PRESUMPTION [OF
UNCLEANNESS].
38
 
    IF A MAN GIVES ANOTHER A BLOW FROM WHICH HE WAS EXPECTED TO DIE AND
HE PARTIALLY RECOVERED AND THEN GREW WORSE AND DIED [THE OTHER] IS
LIABLE [FOR MURDER]. R. NEHEMIAH EXEMPTS HIM SINCE THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION [IN HIS FAVOUR].
39
 
    GEMARA. How do we know this?
40
 — Nathan said: The verse says. And of the gonorrhoeic
41
that have the issue,
42
 [whether it be a man or a woman].
43
 [The male] at his third experience of issue
is compared to the female.
44
 But have we not been taught: R. Eliezer Says: At the third [issue] we
examine him but not at the fourth?
45
 In point of fact they disagree on [the question of stressing the
particle] ‘the’.
46
 R. Eliezer lays stress on [the particle] ‘the’, whilst the Rabbis do not do so.
 
    [FLUX RESULTING] FROM AN ACCIDENT TO HIM, DOUBTFUL FLUX:
____________________
(1) For the first time.
(2) Since the region is now revealed as a graveyard site.
(3) Once removed legally they need not be brought back.
(4) I.e., since the removal of the two was legal.
(5) The third corpse counts as newly found.
(6) Since three bodies have been uncovered in it.

---

(7) I.e. in order to declare a region in the land of Israel clean, the least pretext was considered sufficient. Rashi suggests
another rendering, viz.: ‘They found a rib and declared the Land of Israel clean’; i.e., the Jews on entering Palestine
found a human rib buried and thereupon declared the whole of the rest of Palestine clean, no further search after
graveyard sites being necessary. Hence any pretext to avoid declaring parts of Palestine unclean will do.
(8) Referring to the Mishnah that he must search beyond the three corpses found to a distance of twenty cubits.
(9) Tosaf. v. next note.
(10)  Must he search in other directions or not? (Tosaf.). Aliter. Do these three alone form a graveyard site or not?
(Rashi). Aliter: If he has searched in all directions and found nothing, must he search more thoroughly and dig more
deeply? (Asheri).
(11) But no other part of the field.
(12) I.e., why are we not stricter in our requirements?
(13) Referring to a doubt that has arisen as to whether an affected spot has spread or not (v. Lev. XIII), e.g., two persons
are examined by a priest and have different-sized areas of disease. The following week both ‘areas are the size of the
larger of the two and the priest is uncertain which one has increased, v. Neg. V,4.
(14) Lit., ‘so long as he has not become bound to the uncleanness’. Before the patient has been declared unclean.
(15) Both men remain clean.
(16) If a similar doubt arises as to whether the diseased part has diminished in size.
(17) That there is any difference between the two cases quoted in the Mishnah.
(18) Lev. XIII, 59, concluding the chapter on the symptoms of leprous disease.
(19) Hence doubtful cases should also be regarded as clean.
(20) Thus there is no ground for basing the distinction on this verse.
(21) And the law of the Mishnah is not derived from a verse, but follows from the fact that in the first case there is no
presumption of uncleanness and in the second case there is.
(22) Of Ieprous disease, v. Lev. XIII, 2.
(23) The symbol of uncleanness. Ibid. v. 3.
(24) Neg. IV, 11. The word rendered ‘doubtful’ is the technical term for ‘dim’ used of a diseased spot, (v. Lev. XIII, 6).
For a discussion of the reading here v. Tosaf. Sanh. 87b, I.v.
(25) Parallel passages (Sanh. 87b) have Rabbah.
(26) I.e.,it is considered to have become dim and is therefore clean.
(27) Lev. XIII, 59.
(28) The disease is to be pronounced clean unless it certainly has the symptoms of uncleanness described in that chapter.
(29) To determine whether any of these seven things was not the cause of the flux, as it would not then be evidence of
gonorrhoea.
(30) I.e., before there has been a flux on three occasions, v. Zabim II, 2.
(31) Whether he had eaten too much.
(32) Whether he had carried heavy loads.
(33) Any kind of strain through physical exercise might cause flux.
(34) The sight of two people in coition.
(35) A similar thought.
(36) I.e., after one of the seven things mentioned.
(37) See the Gemara.
(38) V. Zabim II, 2.
(39) The recovery creates a presumption that death was not caused by the blow. [Maim. Yad., Rozeah, IV, 5 explains
contrariwise: The fact that he ultimately died creates a presumption that death was caused by the blow, the last clause
being thus explanatory of the views of the Rabbis.]
(40) That after gonorrhoea is established, he is not questioned as to possible causes.
(41) E.V. ‘And of them’. Indicating the first issue.
(42) Expressed in Heb. by the nota accusativi, ‘eth’. Indicating the second issue.
(43) Indicating the third issue; Lev. XV, 33.
(44)  Who becomes gonorrhoeic whatever the cause. Hence at the third issue gonorrhoea is established whatever its
cause.
(45) And on the present interpretation of the verse, he is not examined for the third issue.

---

(46)  The Hebrew particle governing the accusative. This particle can be omitted and so its presence is taken by R.
Eliezer to indicate another issue before the comparison is made of man with woman.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66a
Raba said: Do not suppose [that the meaning of ‘doubtful flux’ is] that there is a doubt whether there
was an issue or not. In point of fact, the issue must be a certain one,
1
 the doubt being whether it was
due to an issue of semen
2
 or whether it was caused by [a separate gonorrhoeic] attack.
3
 Once
uncleanness has been established, if there is a doubt, he is unclean.
4
 
    HIS ISSUE OF SEMEN IS UNCLEAN: In what respect [is the semen unclean]? For if it be in
respect of touching it,
5
 how is it worse than the issue of semen of a clean person?
6
 — It must
therefore mean that the semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles through being carried. But who
is known to hold the view that the issue of semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles if carried?
For if you say that it is the following Tanna, as has been taught: ‘R. Eliezer says that the issue of
semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea does not defile if carried, whilst R. Joshua says that it does
defile if carried, because it is impossible that it should not be diluted with gonorrheic fluid’ — even
R. Joshua only says this
7
 because it is diluted with gonorrhoeic fluid, but not when it is undiluted?
8
— In point of fact, said R. Adda b. Ahabah, [the purpose of the Mishnah is] to lay down that
[subsequent gonorrhoeic issue] is not ascribed to [the prior flow of semen].
9
 R. Papa tried to argue
with Raba that this
10
 was because the flow resulted from his weakness [following the gonorrhoea].
11
Raba said to him: Have we not learnt: A proselyte defiles if subject to a gonorrhoeic flow
immediately after conversion?
12
 — He replied: There cannot be greater sickness than this.
13
 
        We  must  say  in  fact
14
 that [to what extent semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles] is a
controversy of Tannaim — For it has been taught: The semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles
for twenty — four hours
15
 if carried. R. Jose however, Says; for the whole of the same day.
16
 
    Wherein does their controversy lie?
17
 — In respect of the point raised by Samuel. For Samuel
noted the following contradiction. It is written, If there be among you any man that is not clean by
reason of that which chanceth him by night [etc.]
18
 and it is written [further], when evening cometh
on he shall bathe himself in water.
19
 The one who says twenty-four hours infers this from when
evening cometh on,
20
 and the other infers it from, ‘that which chanceth him by night’.
21
 Now to the
one who infers it from ‘when evening cometh on,’ [it may be objected] it is written, ‘that which
chanceth him by night’? — He will reply that it is customary for an emission to occur at night.
22
 
    MISHNAH. SAMUEL WAS A NAZIRITE IN THE OPINION OF R. NEHORAI, AS IT SAYS,
AND THERE SHALL NO RAZOR [MORAH] COME UPON HIS HEAD.
23
 IT SAYS WITH
REFERENCE TO SAMSON, AND [NO] RAZOR [MORAH]
24
 AND IT SAYS WITH
REFERENCE TO SAMUEL, AND [NO] RAZOR [MORAH]; JUST AS MORAH IN THE CASE
OF SAMSON [IS USED OF] A NAZIRITE,
25
 SO [WE SHOULD SAY] MORAH IN THE CASE
OF SAMUEL [IS USED OF] A NAZIRITE. R. JOSE OBJECTED: BUT HAS NOT MORAH
REFERENCE TO [FEAR
26
 OF] A HUMAN BEING? R. NEHORAI SAID TO HIM: BUT DOES
IT NOT ALSO SAY, AND SAMUEL SAID; ‘HOW CAN I GO? IF SAUL HEAR IT HE WILL
KILL ME’
27
 [WHICH SHOWS] THAT HE WAS IN FACT AFRAID OF A HUMAN BEING?
28
 
    GEMARA. Rab said to his son Hiyya:
____________________
(1) Examination must show the presence of gonorrhoeic matter.
(2) When it only adds one day to his period of counting.
(3) When he would have to begin to count his seven clean days over again, (v. Lev. XV, 13).
(4) And the gonorrhoeic matter is ascribed to an attack of gonorrhoea and not to the issue of semen.

---

(5) That one who touches the semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea becomes unclean.
(6) Which also renders unclean by contact. Lev. XV, 16, 17.
(7) Viz.: That the semen defiles if carried.
(8) Which is the case contemplated by the Mishnah. The question still remains, why does the Mishnah say that the semen
of a sufferer from gonorrhoea is unclean?
(9) As would be the case for twenty-four hours after an emission of semen in the case of a normal person. v. Zabim II, 3.
(10) The reason that it is not ascribed to the issue of semen once gonorrhoea is established.
(11) And was due to the gonorrhoea and not a consequence of the emission of semen.
(12)  Zabim II, 3; If an issue of semen preceded conversion and gonorrhoeic flow followed, it is not ascribed to the
emission, but counts as a first gonorrhoeic flow.
(13) The emotional effect of the conversion is sufficient sickness to occasion the flow, but does not render it nugatory as
the seven things of the Mishnah do (Rashi). Tosaf. achieves better sense by omitting ‘he replied’, and making the whole
part of Raba's objection, viz.: ‘Can there be greater weakness than that which results from the emotional effect of
conversion?’ and yet the flow is considered unclean. Hence R. Papa's reason is not correct.
(14) Although R. Adda attempted to argue to the contrary.
(15) I.e., if the semen issues within twenty-four hours of the gonorrhoeic flow.
(16) If it comes before the evening; here there is no mention of dilution of the semen by gonorrhoeic fluid. Thus these
Tannaim differ from R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and the Mishnah represents their opinion, that the semen renders unclean
if carried.
(17) The controversy of R. Jose and the other Tanna.
(18)  Deut. XXIII, II. Interpreted as meaning: If he should chance to have an emission of semen during the day,
consequent on a gonorrhoeic issue during the previous night.
(19) Ibid. v. 12.
(20)  Which indicates that though night has already fallen he still remains unclean; i.e., until the end of the period of
twenty — four hours.
(21) Which he interprets as meaning, ‘until nightfall’; but as soon as night has fallen he becomes clean and an emission
will not then defile, if carried.
(22) But there is no particular significance in the use of the word night.
(23) I Sam. I, 11.
(24) Judges XIII, 5. ‘And no razor shall come upon his head’.
(25) Ibid. ‘for the child shall be a nazirite unto God’.
(26) Reading 
vrun
 as 
trun
 (fear) from 
trh
 the verb having adopted a 
v”k
 ending: Jast. s.v. 
vrun
 II interprets
from a root 
rn
 meaning ‘authority’.
(27) I Sam. XVI, 2.
(28)  Lit., ‘flesh and blood’. Hence morah cannot mean ‘fear’ or Hannah's prediction would have been false. It must
therefore mean ‘a razor’.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 66b
Snatch [the cup] and say grace.
1
 So also did R. Huna say to his son Rabbah. Snatch [the cup] and say
grace.
 
    Does this mean that it is better to say the blessing [than to make the responses]? Has it not been
taught: R. Jose says that he who responds. ‘Amen’, is greater than he who says the blessing, and R.
Nehorai said to him: I swear
2
 that this is so. In proof of this, [it may be noted] that the ordinary
soldiers begin a battle but the picked troops gain the victory?
3
 — There is a difference of opinion
between Tannaim on this matter. For it has been taught: Both the one who says the blessing and the
one who responds, ‘Amen’, are included [in this verse].
4
 Nevertheless, [reward] is given first to the
one who says the blessing.
 
    R. Eleazar,
5
 citing R. Hanina, said: The disciples of the sages increase peace throughout the world,
as it is said, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy

---

children.
6
____________________
(1) You be the one who takes the cup of wine to say the grace, and let the others answer, ‘Amen’ to your blessings.
(2) Lit., ‘by heaven’.
(3) A reference to the Roman practice of saving the veteran soldiers until the enemy's resistance had been weakened by
the less experienced soldiers. We see then that the one who completes the blessing by responding is greater.
(4) Ps. XXXIV, 3, ‘O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together’. (Rashi).
(5) V. Yeb. 122b.
(6) Isa. LIV, 13.

---

Document Outline

• Talmud - Nazir (E)1.pdf
• Talmud - Nazir (E)2.pdf
• Talmud - Nazir (E)3.pdf
• Talmud - Nazir (E)4.pdf
• Talmud - Nazir (E)5.pdf