Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 9.2

משנה: נָזִיר שֶׁגִּילַּח וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא. אִם טוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה סוֹתֵר וְאִם טוּמְאַת הַתְּהוֹם אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר. אִם עַד שֶלֹּא גִילַּח בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ סוֹתֵר. כֵּיצַד. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל בַּמְּעָרָה וְנִמְצָא מֵת צָף עַל פִּי הַמְּעָרָה טָמֵא. נִמְצָא מְשׁוּקָּע בְּקַרְקַע הַמְּעָרָה יָרַד לְהָקֵר טָהוֹר לִיטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאַת הַמֵּת טָמֵא שֶׁחֶזְקַת הַטָּמֵא טָמֵא וְחֶזְקַת הַטָּהוֹר טָהוֹר שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר.

MISHNAH: If a nazir was informed that he was impure after he had shaved and it was a known impurity he cancels, but if it was impurity of the abyss he does not cancel. If it was before he shaved, he cancels in any case. How is that? If he went to immerse himself in a cave where a corpse was floating at the entrance, he is impure. If it was found buried in the ground and he went there to refresh himself, he is pure, but to purify himself from the impurity of the dead he is impure since the presumptive state of the impure is impure and the presumptive state of the pure is pure, for it is not unsubstantiated.

הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן תַּנָּא אִם גִּילַּח וְאִם לֹא גִילַּח. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק הַדָּם עָלָיו. עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְגִילַּח הַנָּזִיר אֶת שְׂעַר רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ. הַתּוֹרָה תָלַת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ בִשְׂעָרוֹ.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved”? Rebbi Eliezer! But for the rabbis it would be before the blood was sprinkled for him. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “The nazir shall shave the hair of his crowned head.” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair.

הִשְׁלִים לִנְזִירוּתוֹ לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ עַד שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם סוֹתֵר. הִפְרִישׁ קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְגַלֵּחַ עַד שֶׁנִּתְוַודַּע לוֹ קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. וְלֹא הוּא גִילַּח הוּא לֹא גִילַּח כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. הוּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק עָלָיו הַדָּם הוּא מִשֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו הַדָּם כְּרַבָּנִין.

If he completed his nezirut but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a possible case of a grave in the abyss, he cancels. If he designated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? Whether he shaved or did not shave following Rebbi Eliezer, or whether it happened before or after blood was sprinkled according to the rabbis!

מְּנַיִין לִסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן. אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָכֶם. מַה לָכֶם [בְּגָלוּי. אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְגָלוּי. יָצָא קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְגָלוּי.

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open.

עַד כְּדוֹן עוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח. נָזִיר מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי [יַנַּיי] וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו. מַה עָלָיו שֶׁהוּא] בְגָלוּי. אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְגָלוּי. יָצָא קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְגָלוּי.

So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

צִיבּוּר בְגָלוּי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּסְפֵק קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם מָהוּ שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה עָלָיו הַצִּיץ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה אִם יָחִיד שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כּוֹחוֹ בְטוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה. יִיפִּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. צִיבּוּר שֶׁיִּפִּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בְטוּמְאָה יְדוּעָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּיַיפֶּה כוֹחוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. קַל שֶׁאַתָּה מֵיקַל בְּיָחִיד אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בַּצִּיבּוּר. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקַל בְּיָחִיד שֶׁאִם נִתְוַודַּע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה יֵעָשֶׂה כְמִי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה. בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַבָּשָׂר. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקַל בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא. קַל שֶׁאַתְּ מֵיקַל בְּנָזִיר טָהוֹר שֶׁאִם נִתְוַודַּע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה יֵעָשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּבִיא קָרְבָּן טוּמְאָה. אַתְּ מַחְמִיר בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא שֶׁאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה יֵעָשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּיטְמָא וְחָזַר וְנִיטְמָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּבִיא קָרְבָּן טוּמְאָה עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. נִיטְמָא וְחָזַר וְנִיטְמָא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. עוֹבֵר שֶׁלַּפֶּסַח מָהוּ שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה עָלָיו הַצִּיץ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם הַבְּעָלִים שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כּוֹחָן בְּזָקֵן וְחוֹלֶה יִיפִּיתָה כּוֹחָן בְקֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. עוֹבֵר שֶׁיִּיפִּיתָה כּוֹחוֹ בְּזָקֵן וְחוֹלֶה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּיַיפֶּה כוֹחוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּבְּעָלִים שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כּוֹחָן בִּשְׁאַר כָּל טֻמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה. תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹבֵר שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כּוֹחוֹ בִּשְׁאַר כָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה. הוֹאִיל וְהוֹרַעְתָּה כּוֹחוֹ בִּשְׁאַר כָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁבַּשָּׁנָה הוֹרַע כּוֹחוֹ בְּטָמֵא מֵת בַּפֶּסַח. מַאי כְדוֹן. לָכֶם. בֵּין לוֹ בֵּין לְעוֹבֵר שֶׁלּוֹ. עַד כְּדוֹן עוֹשֵׂי פֶסַח. נָזִיר מְנַיִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. הֲוִינָן סָבְרִין מֵימַר. עָלָיו. לֹא עַל הָעוֹבֵר שֶׁלּוֹ. מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי. הוּא נָזִיר הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֶסַח. הָדָא אָמְרָה. מַה דְּנָפַל לְדֵין נָפַל לְדֵין.

If the public became publicly impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity, you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other.

אֵי זֶה הוּא קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. הַמֵּת שֶׁנִּקְבַּר בְּקַשׁ וּבַתֵּבֶן וּבֶעָפָר וּבַצְּרוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִקְבַּר בַּמַּיִם וּבָאֲפֵילָה וּבִנְקִיקֵי הַסְּלָעִים אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. כָּל שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וְכָל שֶׁאֵי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וְקַשׁ וְתֵבֶן אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. מַתְנִיתָא דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. תֵּבֶן וּבִיטְּלוֹ בָטֵל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. מַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֶׁבְּלָלוֹ בֶעָפָר. יֵשׁ תֵּבֶן שֶׁהוּא כְעָפָר וְעָפָר שֶׁהוּא כְתֵבֶן. תֵּבֶן שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְעָפָר. וְעָפָר שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לְפַנּוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְתֵבֶן. דְּבֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרֵי. חִיפָּהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת בָּטֵל. אִיתָא חֲמֵי. חִיפָּהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת לֹא בָטֵל. חִיפָּהוּ מַחֲצָלוֹת בָּטֵל. מִילְּאֵהוּ חָרִיּוֹת צְרִיכָה. רִבִּי זְרִיקָן רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲפִילוּ רֵיק.

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevasses, it does not create a grave of the abyss.” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he [filled] it with mats it is not disregarded, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets.

אֵי זֶהוּ קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. כָּל שֶׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרוֹ. וְחָשׁ לוֹמָר. שֶׁמָּא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם. בְּחֶזְקַת הַחַי בַּחַיי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ קַמְצוּץ.

“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world? And is the permanence of the living not like living? Explain that he was found compressed.

תַּנֵּי. אֵין לָךְ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא מֵת בִּלְבַד. הָא נְבֵילָה לֹא. קַל וָחוֹמֵר. וּמָה אִם הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכַּב וּמוֹשָׁב הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. נְבֵילָה שֶׁעוֹשָׂה מִשְׁכַּב וּמוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר. אֵין לָךְ עוֹשֶׂה קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם אֶלָּא מֵת בִּלְבַד. לְהוֹצִיא מִשְׁכַּב וּמוֹשָׁב.

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” Therefore, not a carcass. Would it not be a conclusion de minore ad majus? Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. בַּר פִּיקָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּמְעָרָה מְקוּרָה. אֲפִילוּ בִּמְעָרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקוּרָה. סָבַר בַּר פִּיקָה. אִין סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם טָהוֹר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי. אַדַּיִין בַּר פִּיקָה עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁטוּתוֹ. אֵין סְפֵק טוּמְאָה צָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם טָהוֹר אֶלָּא שֶׁרֶץ. אֲבָל בְּמֵת כְּעוֹמֵד הוּא. כְּהָדָא דְתַאנֵי. כָּל הַנִּזְרָקִין סְפֵיקָן טָהוֹר חוּץ מִכְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת הַמַּאֲהִילִין שֶׁהֵן מְטַמְּאִין מִלְּמַטָּן לְמַעֲלָן.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Piqa asked Rebbi: So far in a cave that had a ceiling. Even in a cave without ceiling? Does Bar Piqa think that if there is a doubt regarding floating impurity, it is pure? Rebbi told him, Bar Piqa remains in his stupidity: No case of doubt regarding floating impurity is declared pure except a reptile; but a corpse is like something fixed in place. As it was stated: “Anything thrown is pure in case of a doubt except an olive-sized piece from a corpse, [and] also those covers which induce impurity on bottom and top.”

לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. דְּרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָה אָמַר. טוּמְאָה טְמוּנָה בַקַּרְקַעוֹ שֶׁלַּבַּיִת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּאן מִן הַצַּד וְכָאן מִכְּנֶגְדָּן. רִבִּי עֶזְרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. כָּאן וְכָאן מִן הַצַּד. וְתֵימַר. כָּאן וְכָאן מִכְּנֶגְדָּן. מָהוּ טָמֵא. טָמֵא וְאֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ.

Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joshia, since Rebbi Joshia said, if impurity is hidden in the ground below the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here on the side, there on place. Rebbi Ezra said in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Even if you say in both cases on the side, in both cases on place. What means “impure”? Impure and he does not shave?