Jerusalem Talmud Nazir Chapter 9

הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן נְזִירוּת. חוֹמֶר בַּנָּשִׁים מִבָּעֲבָדִים שֶׁהוּא כוֹפֵף אֶת עַבְדּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֵף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. חוֹמֶר בָּעֲבָדִים מִבַּנָּשִׁים שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי עַבְדּוֹ. הֵיפֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֵיפֵר עוֹלָמִית. הֵיפֵר לְעַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת הִשְׁלִים נְזִירוּתוֹ. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִשְׁתֶּה. הַגּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן נְזִירוּת כול׳. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹדְרִין בַּנָּזִיר וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם נוֹדְרִין בַּנָּזִיר. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר. אִישׁ. מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ. לְהָבִיא הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁנּוֹדְרִין נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אֱמוֹר אַף הָכָא כֵן. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו. אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כַפָּרָה. יָצְאוּ גוֹיִם שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן כַּפָּרָה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַנָּכְרִי. רִבִּי מֵּאִיר אוֹמֵר. נֶעֱרַךְ אֲבָל לֹא מַעֲרִיךְ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מַעֲרִיךְ אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרַךְ. וְזֶה וְזֶה מוֹדִין שֶׁהֵן נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן מַעֲרִיךְ. וְהָכָא מַזִּיר. מָאן דְּאָמַר נֶעֱרַךְ. הָכָא נִיזּוֹר. מַזִּיר הֵיךְ אֶיפְשָׁר. יִשְׁרָאֵל מַזִּיר אֶת הַגּוֹי. וְשָׁמַע הוּא לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאָמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע הַגּוֹי וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְפוֹרֵעַ חוֹב. נִיזּוֹר הֵיךְ אֶיפְשָׁר. גּוֹי מַזִּיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מַזִּיר וְגּוֹי מַזִּיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאָמַר הַגּוֹי. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר. וְשָׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר. מַה שֶׁאָמַר זֶה עָלַי. מַה מִיעַטְתָּ בוֹ. יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבַל יָחֵל וְאֵין הַגּוֹי בְּבַל יָחֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶן הֵיתֵר חָכָם. גּוֹיִם אֵין לָהֶן הֵיתֵר חָכָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם וְהַגּוֹיִם אֵין צְרִיכִין הֵיתֵר חָכָם. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כִּדְרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. חָדָא גוֹיָה אָתַת לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אָמַר לַאֲבִימֵי בַּר טוֹבִי. פּוּק וּפְתַח לָהּ בְּנוֹלָד. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְּרִבִּי אָחָא. דְּאָמַר. הוּא לָבָן הוּא כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ כּוּשַׁן רִשְׁעָתַיִים. שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעִיּוֹת. אַחַת שֶׁחִילֵּל אֶת הַשְׁבוּעָה וְאַחַת שֶׁשִּׁיעְבֵּד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנָה. וְיִכּוֹף אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. הֲנָיָיתִי עָלֶיךָ. כּוֹפֶה וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ. הֲנָיָיתְךָ עָלַי. הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא שֶׁהוּא הֲנָיָיתוֹ וַהֲנָיָיתָהּ. וְלֹא יִכּוֹף אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר. יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר. הָיָה יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת עַל דְּבַר רַבּוֹ. אוֹמֵר לוֹ. הֲלָכָה הִיא. שְׁמַע לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּךְ. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. וְכִי נָזִיר הוּא. לֹא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּה עָלָיו שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא. אַתְּ אָמַר. מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. וָכָא מֵבִיא קוֹרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיִּסְתּוֹר. וְכִי נָזִיר הוּא. אֶלָּא אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּ עָלָיו שֶׁיִּטַּמֵּא. אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. סוֹתֵר. וָכָא סוֹתֵר. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְּתָא. נִיטְמָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. מָהוּ. בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ אוֹ בְשֶׁלֹּא כְפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ. אִין תֵּימַר בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ. מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן טוּמְאָה. אִין תֵּימַר בְּשֶׁלֹּא כְפָפוֹ. רַבּוֹ יַשְׁלֵם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא תַחְתָּיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּשֶׁכְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ אֲנָן קַיָימִין. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא לְחֵירוּת תִּפְקַע מִמֶּנּוּ נְזִירוּת בְּטוּמְאָה. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. מוֹנֶה לִנְזִירוּת בְטוּמְאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עֶבֶד שֶׁאָמַר. הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁאֵצֵא לְחֵירוּת. כּוֹפוֹ לִנְזִירוּת. עֶבֶד כּוֹפוֹ לִנְזִירוּת וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֶה לֹא לִנְדָרִים וְלֹא לִשְׁבוּעוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ וְנִיטְמָא מָהוּ שֶׁיִּלָּקֶה. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא הֲלָכָה. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִּשֶׁנְּזִירוּתוֹ תוֹרָה וַהֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לָכוּף לוֹקֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לֹא יַלָּקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. לוֹקִין עַל הַהֲלָכָה. אֶלָּא אָכֵן הוּא. אִם בִּשֶׁנְּזִירוּתוֹ הֲלָכָה וַהֲלָכָה יֵשׁ לָכוּף וְלוֹקֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לֹא יַלָּקֶה. כְּפָפוֹ רַבּוֹ לְדָבָר אֶחָד מָהוּ שֶׁיִּכּוֹף אוֹתוֹ לְכָל הַדְּבָרִים. בָּאנוּ לְמַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָבַר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. יִשְׁתֶּה. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁאָמַר. בֵּין בְּפָנַיי בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי שְׁתֵה. אוֹף רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַיי שְׁתֵה שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה. אוֹף רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּאוֹמֵר שְׁתֵה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. בְּפָנַי שְׁתֵה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַי אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּאוֹמֵר. בֵּין בְּפָנַיי בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנַיי שְׁתֵה.

MISHNAH: Gentiles cannot take a vow as nazir is restricted to Jews. . Women and slaves can take a vow as nazir . A man’s power is restricted for his wives more than for his slaves since he can force his slave but he cannot force his wife. His power is restricted for his slaves more than for his wives since he can dissolve his wife’s vows Chapters 10,11. but not his slave’s vows. If he dissolved his wife’s, they are eternally dissolved. If he dissolved his slave’s, once the slave gains his freedom he has to fulfill his nezirut . If [the slave] against his master’s wishes. is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meïr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink. HALAKHAH: “Gentiles cannot vow as nazir ,” etc. Israelites can vow as nazir , Gentiles cannot vow as nazir . 7(2 ); Babli Menaḥot 72b . The reference is to Lev. 22:18 : “Every man of the House of Israel, and of the sojourners in Israel, who would bring their sacrifices for all their vows and all their gifts, to present them to the Eternal as elevation offerings.” In the same Chapter, v. 25 makes it clear that what is acceptable from the Israelite is accptable from the Gentile both as vow (in which a person engages himself to dedicate an animal) and a gift (in which a person dedicates an animal, in which case he does not have to supply a replacement if anything should happen to the animal before it could be sacrificed.) Since you say, “a man”, why does the verse mention “a man”? To include Gentiles, who make vows and offer voluntary gifts like Israelites! Why should one not say the same here 6:2 reads: “A man or a woman, if he makes a clear vow of nazir to the Eternal.” “Man” should include Gentiles by the preceding argument. ? There is a difference, for it is written “He shall atone for him. 6:11 . Since Gentiles are not subject to the rules of impurity, the rituals of purification cannot apply to them. ” This refers to one to whom atonement applies. It excludes Gentiles, to whom atonement does not apply. There 1:2. , we have stated: “The Non-Jew, Rebbi Meїr says, is evaluated but does not evaluate 27:1–8 , where “evaluation” amounts are specified to be offered to the Sanctuary for persons of specified age and sex. According to R. Meïr, a Jew may vow to pay a Gentile’s evaluation but a Gentile cannot make such a vow. According to R. Jehudah, a Gentile may vow to pay a Jew’s valuation but a Jew cannot offer to pay the Gentile’s evaluation. ; Rebbi Jehudah says, he evaluates but is not evaluated. Both agree that they make vows and are objects of vows.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: For him who says there that he evaluates, here can he declare a nazir ? For him who says there that he is evaluated, here can he be declared a nazir 27:2 ) and a vow of nazir ( Num. 6:2 ) are completely parallel. It is to be assumed that the rules derived from the texts are also parallel; if a Gentile can cause an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can cause an obligation of nazir ; if a Gentile can be the object of an obligation of payment of an evaluation, he also can be the object of an obligation of nazir . ? How would it be possible for him to [be declared a nazir ]? A Israelite can declare a Gentile to be a nazir . Would he listen to him? But the Israelite said, “I am a nazir ,” the Gentile heard it and said, “I am responsible for what this one said.” It is only as if he paid a debt. . How would it be possible for him to [declare a nazir ]? A Gentile can declare an Israelite to be nazir . Since an Israelite cannot declare [another] Israelite to be a nazir , a Gentile cannot declare an Israelite to be a nazir . But it must be that the Gentile said, “I am a nazir ”, the Israelite heard it and said, “I am taking upon me what this one said.” What did you exclude from him, the question arises whether in general the power of Gentiles to make vows is equal to that of Jews or not. ? An Israelite is subject to “not to desecrate” 30:3 ; Sifry zuṭa 30:2. Since a Gentile is not subject to biblical laws other than those given to Adam and Noah, he cannot be held responsible if he “desecrates his word,” i. e., does not keep his vow. , a Gentile is not subject to “not to desecrate”. Rebbi Jonah said, Israelites can be relieved by a Sage, Introduction and Chapter 9. , Gentiles cannot be relieved by a Sage 1:2, Notes 33 ff. . Rebbi Yose said, Israelites need a Sage to be relieved, Gentiles do not need a Sage to be relieved. It follows that Rebbi (Jonah) [Yose] follows Rebbi Abbahu. A Gentile woman came before Rebbi Abbahu, who said to Abime bar Tobi: Go and find her an opening by unforeseen circumstances 9:2 . He ordered the lady’s vow to be dissolved to give her peace of mind, not because it would have been necessary. . And Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Aḥa, who said that Laban was Kushan-Riš‘ataim . Why was he called “Kushan the doubly bad”? Because he committed two evils. One that he desecrated his oath, the other that he subjugated Israel for eight years 105b , as tannaïtic text. The story would make Laban live more than 300 years. . 11:1, Notes 23–25 . Why can he not force his wife? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he hasto dissolve. There is a difference because it is a benefit for him and her. He should not be able to force his slave! There is a difference, “because his God’s crown is on his head 6:7 . ,” a person who has no other master. This excludes the slave who has another master. If he comes to protest his master’s word, one says to him: this is practice, obey your master’s orders! If his master pushed him and he became impure, does he have to bring a sacrifice of impurity? Is he a nazir , did not you decide for him that he should become impure. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility. ? You say, he brings a sacrifice of impurity; could he bring here a sacrifice of impurity? Does he annul? Is he a nazir , did not you decide for him that he should become impure? You say, he annuls; could he here annul? The following is obvious: If he became impure and then was manumitted, he brings a sacrifice of impurity. When is that, if his master forced him or if his master did not force him? If you say that he forced him, how can be bring a sacrifice of impurity? If you say he did not force him, should he not count for his master as long as he still is in the latter’s power for a specified period, he should be able to count that period as long as he did not violate its terms by his own will. ? Rebbi Yose said, we are dealing with the case that his master forced him. You should not say that because he was manumitted, the nezirut in impurity was lifted from him, the days he was impure because of his master’s command are counted. The rules of nezirut of free men apply to him only from the moment of his manumission. . Therefore, it was necessary to say that he counts nezirut in impurity. . “Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut . [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut ; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped is the same as the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow, and both have status of “practice”, i. e., have quasi-biblical status as part of Judaism as organized by Ezra and his contemporaries, in the absence of a special practice exempting the slave, the latter should be held liable for infractions of his vow even if he was forced. But if the power of the slave to vow as nazir be rabbinical, then there can be no biblical punishment for infraction. On this R. Mana notes that quasi-biblical status is not biblical status, and biblical punishment for non-biblical infractions ( Deut . 25:4 ) is impossible. Therefore, the question is rephrased: If the power of the slave to enter into a state of nazir is biblical but the power of the master to force him to disregard his vow is only from practice, should the slave not be subject to prosecution for infringing his vow? The question is not to be taken seriously; it rather points out a logical inconsistency between the rule which allows the slave to become a nazir and the rule which allows the master to override, but not abolish, that vow. . If his master forced him in one respect, did he force him in all respects has three aspects: Growing hair, abstention from the fruit of the vine, and avoidance of the impurity of the dead. If the master objected to one aspect, does he reject the others automatically? ? We came to the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose: “If [the slave] is not in the presence of his master, Rebbi Meїr says, he cannot drink, but Rebbi Yose says, he may drink.” Where do we hold? If he told him, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. If he told him, drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence, even Rebbi Yose will agree. But we hold in the case that he tells him: “drink!” Rebbi Meїr says, [it means] drink in my presence, do not drink in my absence. Rebbi Yose says, [it is] as if he said, drink whether in my presence or not in my presence.

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

MISHNAH: If a nazir was informed that he was impure after he had shaved and has reverted to profane status. 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 in a cave. It seems that in the Judean and Galilean hills practically all miqwaot were in caves. 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. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved” which returns the nazir to normal life is shaving. ? 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. shall shave his crowned head at the door of the Tent of Meeting, take the hair of his crowned head and put it in the fire under the well-being sacrifice.” ” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair. 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 to free the person from repeating in case of a possible impurity from a hidden source? ? 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! 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. 9:10 , detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14 of Nisan. ” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open 7:7 . In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. The addition “for you” seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 81b . What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9 : “If a person dies suddenly on him ”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open: . 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. 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity ( Soṭah 1:2, Note 88 ). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to 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 64 , understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain ( Note 61 ). , 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: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.” The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7 : “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover. The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten. . 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: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir , viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis. . 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 became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice. . As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case. If somebody is officiating text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim . 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 5:3 , Ex. 12:4 ). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them ( Lev. 21:18–20 ), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple. , 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. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. 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 9:10 , detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14 of Nisan. ”, 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 6:9 : “If a person suddenly dies on him .” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead. ”, 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 80b . . “What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles 2:9 ; quoted in the Babli, 63b and Pesaḥim 81b , without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, a “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident. . 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). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed. . 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 15:1 , 5 , 6 ; Halakhah 7:3, Note 164 ). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler. . 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. 15:5 ; quoted in the Babli Eruvin 79a . “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.” ” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he [filled], required by the text. In Nazir , “covered”. 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 text, reading רַקּ. The Nazir text reads ריק, which cannot be רִיק “emptiness”, nor רֵיק “empty”, nor רוֹק “spittle”. . 2:9 , quoted Babli Pesaḥim 81b . “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 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”. ? Explain that he was found compressed. It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.” 2:9 , quoted Babli Pesaḥim 80b . 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, does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified. A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using ( Lev. 15:4–6 , 21–22 , 26 ). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative . The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other. . 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 5:6–7 and in the Babli, 63b–64a . : “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.” Does this, that he has to shave, do we have to read the Mishnah as equating this impurity to those mentioned in Chapter Seven for which the nazir does not have to shave? 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, has to shave.” ?

הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת בַּתְּחִילָּה מוּשְׁכָּב כְּדַרְכּוֹ נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּפוּשָׂתוֹ. מָצָא שְׁנַיִם נוֹטְלָן וְאֶת תְּפוּשָׂתָן. מָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַד שְׁמוֹנֶה כִּמְלוֹא הַמִּיטָּה וְקוֹבְרֵיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. בּוֹדֵק מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. מָצָא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה בּוֹדֵק הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ מִתְּחִילָּה מְצָאוֹ נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּבוּסָתוֹ. אֵי זֶהוּ מֻשְׁכַּב כְּדַרְכּוֹ. רַגְלָיו מְפוּשָׁטוֹת וְיָדָיו עַל לִבּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם מְצָאוֹ קַמְצוּץ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. גַּל נָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ. וְהָתַנֵּי. מָצָא שְׁנַיִם רָאשֵׁיהֶם בְּצַד מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם נוֹטְלָן וְאֶת תְּפוּסָתָן. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. קַמְצוּץ מָהוּ. רָאשֵׁיהֶם בְּצַד מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֵּירִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּגוֹן אֵילֵּין נוּנַיָּא צְלִיָיא רֵישֵׁי דְּהֵן גַּבֵּי עוּקְצֵיהּ דְּהֵן עוּקְצֵיהּ דְּהֵן גַּבֵּי רֵישֵׁיהּ דְּהֵן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר גּוּפְתָּא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תַּנֵּי אַתְּ אֲמַר מְלַקֵּט עֶצֶם עֶצֶם וְהַכֹּל טָהוֹר. וָכָא אַתְּ אֲמַר הָכֵין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָהּ. אִם הִתְקִינוֹ לְקֶבֶר מִתְּחִילָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ תְּפוּסָה. כַּמָּה הוּא תְפוּסַת קֶבֶר. קוֹלֵף ג̇ אֶצְבָּעוֹת עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהַמּוֹהֵל יוֹרֵד. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. הָדָא אָמְרָה. מֵת מִצְוָה מוּתָּר לְפַנּוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּקְבַּר שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְבַּר לִשְׁאֵלָה. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מֵת מִצְוָה הִיא. סָבַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא שֶׁאֵין מֵיתֵי מִצְוָה מְצוּיִין. נִמְצֵאתָה אוֹמֵר. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי קְבָרוֹת הֵן. קֶבֶר הַנִּמְצָא מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. פִּינֵּהוּ מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. קֶבֶר הַיָּדוּעַ אֵין מְפַנִּים אוֹתוֹ. פִּינֵּהוּ מְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. קֶבֶר שֶׁהוּא מַזִּיק אֶת הָרַבִּים מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. פִּינֵּהוּ מְקוֹמוֹ טָמֵא וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. הוֹרָה רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן בִּכְפַר עֲקַבְיָה. מְקוֹמוֹ מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. מַה וּפְלִיג. כָּאן בְּשֶׁקָּדַם הוּא אֶת הָעִיר וְכָאן בְּשֶׁקְּדָמָתוֹ הָעִיר. תַּנֵּי. קֶבֶר שֶׁהֱקִיפָתוֹ הָעִיר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹת מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. אִית תַּנֵּי. אֵין מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. בְּנָתוּן בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וְשְׁיֵרַיִים. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. בְּנָתוּן חוּץ לְשִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וּשְׁיֵרַיִים. מָאן דְּאָמַר מְפַנִּין אוֹתוֹ. בְּעָשׂוּי כְּמִין גַּם. מָאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְפַנִּין. בְּעָשׂוּי כְּמִין הֵיא. כָּל הַקְּבָרוֹת מִתְפַּנִּין חוּץ מִקִּבְרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ומִקִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲלֹא קִיבְרֵי בְּנֵי דָוִיד מִתְפַּנִּין וְקִיבְרֵי בְּנֵי חוּלְדָּה הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַים וְלֹא נָגַע אָדָם בָּהֶן לְפַנּוֹתָן מֵעוֹלָם. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מִשָּׁם רְאַיָיה. מְחִילָה הָיָה שָׁם וּמִשָּׁם הָיְתָה טוּמְאָה מְקַדֶּדֶת וְיוֹצְאָה לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. וְעוֹשֶׂה חָצֵר עַל פֶּתַח הַמְעָרָה שֵׁשׁ עַל שֵׁשׁ כִּמְלוֹא הַמִּיטָּה. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן מְלֹא הַמִּיטָּה עוֹמֶדֶת. בְּרַם הָכָא מְלוֹא מִיטָּה חוֹזֶרֶת. עַד אֵיכָן. עַד כְּדֵי נוֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּיטָּה וְחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וְחִילּוּפֵי חִילּוּפֵיהֶן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כֶּרֶם שֶׁהוּא נָטוּעַ עַד פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ כֶרֶם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כֶּרֶם. וְרוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיּוֹת כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָן. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְקִין כָּאן כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין בִּשְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. וְלֹא דַמְיָיא. תַּמָּן יֵשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵין עָלֶיהָ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא דַמְיָיא. תַּמָּן מְרוּוָחִין וּרְצָפָן בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת. רְצוּפִין וְרִיוְוחָן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. בְּרַם הָכָא מָהוּ פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁבָּא וּמְצָאָן רְצוּפִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. גַּל נָפַל עֲלֵיהֶן וּרְצָפָן. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי. מְרוּוָחִין הָיוּ וּרְצָפָן. עַד כַּמָּה מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי מִיָישָׁא בַּר יִרְמְיָה. עַד מ̇ אַמָּה. בָּדַק עֶשְׂרִים וּמָצָא בּוֹדֵק עַד עֶשֶׂר. בָּדַק עֶשְׂרִים וּמָצָא בּוֹדֵק עַד עֶשֶׂר. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בָּדַק עֶשֶׂר וּמָצָא בּוֹדֵק עַד עֶשֶׂר. בָּדַק עֶשֶׂר וּמָצָא בּוֹדֵק עַד עֶשֶׂר.

MISHNAH: If somebody finds a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings. If he finds two, he takes them and their surroundings. If he finds three and between one and the next is a distance of between four and eight cubits, enough for the bier and the people who bury, that is a cemetery. He has to check on both sides for another 20 cubits. If he finds a grave at the end of 20 cubits, he has to check another 20 cubits since it is obvious that if this were a new burial ground, one would have taken him and his surroundings there. HALAKHAH: What means “lying as usual”? His legs straight and his hands over his heart. But if he found him compressed, I am saying that a heap fell on him and killed him. But did we not state: “If he found two with their heads beside their legs, he takes them and their surroundings?” They wanted to say, what means “compressed”? Their heads beside their legs. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, like fried fish, the head of one near the tail of the other and vice versa. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: In a statement you say, “he collects every single bone and everything is pure 16:5 : “If one removes a grave from his field, he collects every single bone and everything is pure.” In contrast, the Mishnah here requires that a certain amount of earth also be removed. ;” and here, you say so? He answered him, say what comes afterwards: “If he prepared it from the start as a grave, it has surroundings. (when the bones are finally removed). This is the case considered in the Mishnah here, since one speaks of graves parallel to one another, i. e., intended as temporary graves. ” How much is the surrounding of a grave? One shaves off three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent 47b . . 16:9 ; Tractate Śemaḥot 14; Babli Sanhedrin 47b . To this one may add the versions in Maimonides Ṭum’at Mēt 9:5–6 which is essentially identical with the Yerushalmi and the text there of Ravad, which in general follows the Babli. Tractate Śemaḥot does not give an opinion about impurity; otherwise it follows the Babli. The three texts, Yerushalmi (Y), Babli (B), and Tosephta (T) state that if the grave found accidentally be removed the place is impure (Y), pure (BT); its use is forbidden (YT), permitted (B). The place of a known grave after removal is pure (YT), impure (B); its use is permitted (YT), forbidden (B). The place of a grave removed because of a danger to the public is impure (YT), pure (B); its use is forbidden (YBT) except that Ravad reads here “permitted” in the Babli, a reading contradicting all our other sources for the Babli. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed 14. ,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits, this is part of the statement of the baraita : If a grave is between two parallel rows of houses and the empty space in between is at least the size of a standard field, a bet se’ah , it cannot be removed. If the difference is less, it may be removed. The bet se’ah is defined as 5’000 square cubits (cf. Peah 2:1, Note 31 ), its edge length is √5000 = 70.71… cubits. This length is the general standard for defining a “built-up area.” As long as no two buildings are separated by more than 70.7 cubits, they are part of the same urban area, e. g., for defining the area of free mobility on the Sabbath. Therefore, an empty strip less than 70.7 cubits wide is not open space but a built-up area. . He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. 14. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.” There 6:8 , detailing the standards for a builder of burial caves. , we have stated: “He makes a courtyard in front of the cave six cubits square as a place for the bier.” And here, he says so? There for a bier standing, here for the width of a turning bier. How far 3:1 . ? For the carriers of the bier, their replacements, and the replacements of their replacements. There, we have stated 5:2 . : “If a vineyard is planted with less that four cubits of space, Rebbi Simeon says that it is no vineyard. But the Sages say that it is a vineyard and one disregards the plants in the middle as if nonexistent.” 5:2 (29d 1. 54 ff.), full variant readings and commentary there, Notes 32–40. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The status of the slave reverts to profane; the slave is not responsible for the lifting of the status of nazir from him. If there were anything sinful in this action, it would be the master’s responsibility. : Just as they disagree here, they disagree about a graveyard. Rebbi Jonah said, one cannot compare these. There, they form a graveyard; here, they do not form a graveyard. Rebbi Yose said, one cannot compare these. There, if they were spaced apart and one moved them closer together, that is the disagreement. If they were close and one moved them apart, everybody would agree. But here, what is their disagreement? When one found them close together. Rebbi Simeon said, a landslide fell on them and compressed them. But the Sages say, were they spaced apart and somebody brought them close together?” How far does one importune him? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Miasha bar Jeremiah: Up to 40 cubits. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. If he checked twenty and found, he checks another ten. Some Tannaïm state: If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten. If he checked ten and found, he checks another ten.

כָּל סְפֵק נְגָעִים בַּתְּחִילָּה טָהוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה. מִשֶׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא. בְּשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה בְּמַאֲכָל בְּמִשְׁתֶּה בְּמַשָּׂא בִּקְפִיצָה בְּחוֹלִי בְּמַרְאֶה וּבְהִירְהוּר. מִשֶׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָנְסוֹ וּסְפֵיקוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ טְמֵאִים שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. וְטִמֵּא אוֹתוֹ. אֶת הַוַודַּי הוּא מְטַמֵּא אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַסָּפֵק. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְטוּמְאָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁטָּהַר. וְטִיהֲרוֹ. אֶת הַוַודַּאי הוּא מְטָהֵר אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַסָּפֵק. לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדַע שֶׁנִּיטְמָא. כְּתִיב וְהַדָּוָה בְּנִידָּתָהּ וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ. מַה נִידָּה מְטַמָּא מֵאוֹנְסִים. אַף הַזָּב מְטַמֵּא מֵאוֹנְסִים. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ מֵרְאִיָיה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לִכְשֶׁיֵיעָשֶׂה כְנִידָּה. אוֹנְסוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אוֹנְסוֹ מַמָּשׁ. סְפֵיקוֹ. סָפֵק זוֹב סָפֵק קֶרִי. זוֹבוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ בְּלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין בָּהּ מֵעֵת לָעֵת.

MISHNAH: Any person with initially doubtful skin disease is pure as long as he was not declared impure. After he was declared impure, in doubt he is impure 5:4–5. . 2:2; it is included here only because it is a “not unsubstantiated” case. In seven ways does one check the sufferer from a genital discharge before he becomes impure 15:1–15 . After a discharge of semen, a male is impure for the rest of the day ( Lev. 15:16 ). For any other discharge, the first time he is pure. After the second discharge within 24 hours he is impure for seven days. However, if there is a reason to suspect that the discharge was induced by an outside cause, he remains pure since impurity is created by ( Lev. 15:2 ) “flow from his flesh”, not from any outside cause. After the third discharge, he needs purification by a sacrifice. : About eating and drinking, carrying a load or jumping, sickness, looking, and thought. After he becomes impure one does not check him; his accident, doubtful case, and semen are impure since the matter is not unsubstantiated. HALAKHAH: “He shall declare him impure 13:2 . This is the first case of skin disease treated in Lev. ; it stands for all cases. .” The certain case he declares impure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his impurity until he is known to be pure. “He shall purify him 13:23 . Sifra Tasria‘ Parashah 4(9); Babli 65b . .” The certain case he declares pure, he does not declare the doubtful case impure. Forever he is in his purity until he is known to be impure. It is written 15:33 , the final verse of the chapter dealing with impurity caused by the human body. : “The unwell woman in her separation and the sufferer from flux in his flux.” Since the menstruating woman may become impure also by accident, so the sufferer from flux may become impure also by accident. Then even at his first episode? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from the moment he becomes like a menstruating woman. “His accident,” Rebbi Eleazar said, his real accident. “His doubtful case,” a doubt whether it is flux or ejaculation. Are flux and semen not impure anyhow? But one does not consider it for the 24 hour period.

הַמַּכֶּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה הֵיקֵל מִמַּה שֶׁהָיָה וּלְאַחַר מִיכֵּן הִכְבִּיד וָמֵת חַיָיב. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר פָּטוּר שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. מָנֵי מַתְנִיתָה. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה פּוֹטֵר וַחֲכָמִים מְחַיְיבִין שֶׁרַגְלַיִים לַדָּבָר. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. שְׁנֵי עוֹמָדִין רָבִים עַל עוֹמֶד אֶחָד. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר. עוֹמֶד הָאֶמְצָעִי רָבָה עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּך בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה. וְכִי עָלַת עַל דַּעְתָּךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק וַהֲלָהּ נֶהֱרַג עַל יָדָיו. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ מֵת מַחְמַת עֲמָדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה פָּטוּר. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לַמִּשְׁכָּב. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ מֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹפֵל לַמִּשְׁכָּב. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה. אִם בְּשֶׁאֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה הָדָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּך בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ. הָא אִם לֹא קָם חַיָיב. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא אֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה הָדָא הִיא דִּכְתִיב רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הָיָה. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. הֵקַל מִמַּה שֶׁהָיָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. אִם נָתַן נָתַן. לֹא נָתַן מִקְרָא שֶׁיִּתֵּן. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. עֲמָדוּהוּ לְמִיתָה וְחָיָה. מֵאֵימָתַי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּקֵל. מָאן דְּאָמַר. עוֹמֶד שֶׁלְּטָעוּת הוּא. לֹא נָתַן אֵין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ שֶׁיִּתֵּן. נָתַן מָהוּ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל. מְסַיְיעָא לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְחַיִים וָמֵת. מֵאֵימָתַי נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיַּכְבִּיד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֵית כָּאן מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיַּכְבִּיד אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁיָּקֵל. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָמְתָה. אָמְרִין אַסָּיָיא. אִין מִקְטְעָה הִיא חַיָיה הוּא. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי העבד. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְכִי יִנָּצוּ. וְכִי יְרִיבוּן. וַהֲלֹא הִיא מַצּוּת הִיא מְרִיבָה. הִיא מְרִיבָה הִיא מַצּוּת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִי יִנָּצוּ וְכִי יְרִיבוּן. אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן אֶת הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין עַל הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא חַיָיב לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּמִּתְכַּוֵּין. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָמְתָה. אָמְרִין אַסָּיָיא. אִין מִקְטְעָה הִיא חַיָה הוּא. מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי העבד. וָכָא חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא הוּא שֶׁיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי הַיָּד.

MISHNAH: If somebody injured another person who was judged dying and then this person’s state improved. 21:19 ). but later he died, he is guilty. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, he cannot be prosecuted since it is not unsubstantiated. HALAKHAH: 9:3 (fol. 27a). The first part of our text is almost identical with the text there; the second part is badly garbled and can be understood only from the Sanhedrin text. ( ג denotes a Genizah reading.) So, in place of מני “who is the author”? is the Mishnah: Rebbi Neḥemia declares him not prosecutable but the Sages declare him guilty since it is not unsubstantiated evidence of guilt, not an argument which prohibits prosecution. . The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation 6; Babli Sanhedrin 78b , Ketubot 33b ). ; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “ ‘If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. 21:19 . Both Targum Onqelos and Mekhilta dR. Ismael explain משענת not as “cane” but as “health”. This meaning seems to be understood here. .’ Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But even if he died according to the first estimation he cannot be prosecuted.” 78a/b , Ketubot 33b ; Tosephta Baba qama 9:7 ; Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai pp. 174–175. What is the rabbi’s reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden. 21:18 . .” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they estimated: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die. If they estimated: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane.” Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is guilty. But if they did not estimate: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die? If they did not estimate: “estimated” and “did not estimate” are exchanged everywhere. This seems to be the correct version; in v. 18 the imperfect לא יָמוּת is read as “not expected to die”, since it does not say לֹא מֵת. But then v. 19 could simply mean that [the attacker] has to pay for disability and medical costs; the long introductory clause therefore refers to another case. For the Sages, the medical prognosis is irrelevant. that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay 7:1, Notes 3–73 ; Ketubot 3:1 ). Therefore, a verse is needed to force the potential murderer to pay if his victim survives. . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. (different text in Sanhedrin is in parentheses and italicized ): What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay, if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay ( does he have to pay ?). For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation, if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. ( It proves that the estimate was wrong .) This (A baraita ) supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died ( die but he lived ). From when does he have to pay him ( count for him )? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better. is no support for R. Simeon ben Laqish since R. Yose ben Hanina will agree that the agressor has to pay the victim who is getting better. ” ( but from the start. That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies .) What is the difference between them? If his state improved. For him who says, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, the verse makes him pay. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would die, when does he have to pay him? From the moment he improves. For him who says, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? This supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would live but he died. From when does one have to pay him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here, “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א. It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand. ? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel. 21:22 , speaking of the injury to an innocent bystander, the unintended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for pain and impairment of the victim. ,” “if people brawl.. 21:18 , the paragraph under discussion, about the intended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for medical cost and disability. ” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א. It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand. ? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand.

נָזִיר הָיָה שְׁמוּאֵל כְּדִבְרֵי רִבִּי נְהוֹרַיי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמוֹרָה לֹא יַעֲלֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. נֶאֱמַר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן מוֹרָה וְנֶאֱמַר בִּשְׁמוּאֵל מוֹרָה מַה מוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן נָזִיר אַף מוֹרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִּשְׁמוּאֵל נָזִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וַהֲלֹא אֵין מוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי נְהוֹרַאי וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי וּכְבָר הָיָה עָלָיו מוֹרָא שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כְּתִיב וְכָל הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּעְדֵּר יֵעָדֵרוּן לֹא תָבֹא שָׁמָּה יִרְאַת שָׁמִיר וָשָׁיִת. מָה הָדֵין בִּיזְרָא דְּחִיל מִן הָדֵין פַּרְזְלָא. אַף הָדֵין סְעָרָה דְּחִיל מִן הָדֵין פַּרְזְלָא.

MISHNAH: Samuel was a nazir following the words of Rebbi Nahorai, as it is said: “A shaving knife shall not come on his head. 1:11 . .” It is said about Samson “a shaving knife. 13:5 ”, and it is said about Samuel “a shaving knife”. Since “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samson refers to nazir . 13:5 , so “a shaving knife” mentioned for Samuel refers to nazir . Rebbi Yose said, but fear is only of flesh and blood! Rebbi Nahorai answered him: Was it not said: “Samuel said, how can I go? Will not Saul hear of it and kill me?. 16:2 . ” The fear of flesh and blood already was on him. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yannai said: It is written. 7:25 . : “To all the hills which are to be worked by the harrow the fear of worm 9:13/14, Note 219 .) and snail will not come.” Just as the stalk fears the iron, so the hair fears the iron.