ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 63
(a) If after shaving for his Taharah, a Nazir is informed that he is Tamei
Meis, he is obligated to demolish all of his Nezirus. He would not need to
do this - if the Tum'ah was Tum'as Tehom.
(b) He would have to demolish his Nezirus even for Tum'as Tehom - if he was
informed about it before he shaved.
(c) If having touched a Sheretz, the Nazir went to Tovel in a cave and after
the Tevilah, he found a k'Zayis of a Meis floating in the part of the Mikveh
that was outside the cave (and is not sure whether, at the time when he
Toveled, it was inside the cave or not) he is Tamei - because of the
principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei'.
(d) The k'Zayis of Meis is not considered Tum'as Tehom - because it was not
(a) If after shaving, the Nazir is informed that the bone was discovered
buried in the ground of the cave, assuming that he had previously Toveled
1. ... to cool down - he will be Tahor, because it is a classical case of
(b) The Reisha of our Mishnah deliberately refers to someone who Toveled for
Tum'as Sheretz - to teach us that in spite of the fact that he probably
checked for any Tum'ah before immersing, and there is good reason to assume
that the k'Zayis Meis was not inside the cave, he is nevertheless Tamei
(because of Safek Tum'ah); whereas the Seifa deliberately refers to someone
who Toveled to cool down - to teach us that, despite the fact that he
probably did not check, he is nevertheless Tahor (because of Tum'as Tehom).
2. ... to Tovel for Tum'as Meis - he will be Tamei, because Tum'as Tehom is
only Tahor when the man has a Chezkas Taharah, but not when he has a Chezkas
1. Rebbi Elazar attempts to extrapolate Tum'as Tehom from the Pasuk Naso
"ve'Chi Yamus Meis *Alav* be'Fesa Pis'om" - implying that he knew about it.
(d) In Pesachim, Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish do not argue - because the
Sugya there holds that we require a Pasuk for Pesach and and one for Nazir
(because we cannot learn one from the other); whereas in our Sugya they
do - because only one Pasuk is necessary (seeing as we can learn one from
the other), and the Amora'im argue over which of the two Pesukim is the
2. Resh Lakish extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki
Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh O *be'Derech* Rechokah" - "be'Derech" 'ke'Derech' he
Darshens, just like a Derech is revealed, so too must the Derech be revealed
(to preclude Tum'as Tehom, which is hidden.
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa defines Tum'as Tehom as Tum'ah that was unknown to
anybody in the world - posing a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who learns from
"Alav"), which implies that it is the Nazir who does not need to know about
it, irrespective of who else does.
(b) The Tana of a Beraisa says that, if a Meis was discovered buried lying
across a narrow street ...
1. ... a Kohen who wanted to eat Terumah - is Tamei, and is forbidden to do
(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on both opinions Rebbi Elazar and Resh
Lakish - because, if we learn Tum'as Tehom from a Pasuk, why should there be
a difference between a Nazir and a Korban Pesach on the one hand, and
Terumah on the other?
2. ... a Nazir or someone who was about to bring his Korban Pesach - is
(d) So the source for Tum'as Tehom - must be Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai
(according to any specifications that were handed over to Moshe with the
(a) Our Mishnah gives the criterion for the Halachah of Tum'as Tehom as
being the shaving. The author must be Rebbi Eliezer - who maintains that the
shaving is crucial to the termination of the Nezirus (to permit him to drink
(b) According to the Rabbanan - the criterion would be the sprinkling of the
blood of the relevant Korban (Tosfos).
(a) Rebbi Eliezer draws a distinction between a Nazir who became Tamei Meis
during the Me'los of his Nezirus - who demolishes thirty days, and after the
Me'los - who demolishes seven days.
(b) It will make no difference - whether it is ordinary Tum'ah or Tum'as
Tehom (seeing as he is speaking before the shaving according to Rebbi
(c) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be if someone became Tamei Meis
during the Me'los but only found out about it after the Me'los - whether we
go after the time that he bacame Tamei (in which case he demolishes thirty
days), or the time that he made the discovery (in which case he will only
(a) Rava proves from our Mishnah 'Im Ad she'Lo Gilach, Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach
Soser' that the Tana must be speaking when he only discovered the Tum'ah
after the Me'los. He says 'I de'Isyada Lei be'Soch Me'los, Tzericha
Lemeimar'? (despite the fact that the Tana needs to teach us the case where
Tum'as Tehom applies) - because he has already implied that in the Reisha,
when he wrote 'Noda mi'she'Gilach' (but not before).
(b) According to the Rabbanan, even if the Nazir became Tamei after the
Me'los - he would still demolish all thirty days.
(c) We ...
1. ... initially refute Rava's proof from our Mishnah to resolve our
She'eilah - on the grounds that the Tana does say whether the Nazir
demolishes seven days or all thirty.
2. ... ultimately vindicate him - on the grounds that the Tana said
'Bein-Kach u'Vein-Kach Soser' without stating that he is speaking
specifically when the Tum'ah occurred *after* the Me'los (which he should
have done had there been a distinction between before and after - Rava's
proof that Rebbi Eliezer goes after the 'Yedi'ah' and not after the Tum'ah).
(a) We learned earlier that if one discovers a corpse buried across the
street, that a Kohen who previously passed that spot is Tamei and is
forbidden to eat Terumah (though a Nazir and someone who was about to bring
the Korban Pesach would be Tahor, provided nobody had known about the corpse
at the moment of passing). If however, the corpse did not take up the entire
width of the street, (even) the Kohen would b e Tahor - because, based on
the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor', we assume that he
passed at the side without being Ma'ahil over the body.
(b) The Tana permits the Kohen to eat Terumah even if the corpse took up the
entire width of the street - if it was broken up in a way that made it
possible for a person to pass between the pieces without being Ma'ahil.
(c) This leniency will not apply even to a Kohen who walked past that spot
without carrying a load - if the corpse was buried in a grave (because the
grave combines the bones).
(d) If however, he was riding or carrying a load, then even if the corpse
was not buried in a grave, the Kohen is forbidden to eat Terumah - because
then, one tends to stagger or sway slightly from side to side, reducing the
possibility of having passed between the pieces without being Ma'ahil over
(a) If the corpse is buried (at ground level) in straw or in pebbles it is
considered Tum'as Tehom, whereas if he is buried in water, in a dark corner
or in a cave it is not - because one of the conditions of Tum'as Tehom is
that the corpse in its present location, is not visible to the human eye
(with or without a torch).
(b) Tum'as Tehom is confined to Tum'as Meis - it does extend to any other
form of Tum'ah.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if a k'Zayis of Meis is floating on the
water of a Reshus ha'Yachid, that, in the case of Safek Ohel (or Safek
Negi'ah) we go le'Chumra. In the equivalent case regarding Safek Negi'ah, if
there is a Sheretz floating on the water, according to the Tana Kama of the
Beraisa - the person is Tahor.
Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk there ...
(b) He does not differentiate between whether the water in which the Sheretz
is floating is in a vessel or whether it is in a pool on the ground. Rebbi
Shimon says - that in vessels, he is Tamei, but in a pool of water on the
ground he agrees with the Tana Kama, and renders him Tahor.
(c) The Tana Kama learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "*be'Chol* ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz (al ha'Aretz)" - that someone who
touches a Sheretz is, is Tamei.
(d) Now that we preclude a floating Sheretz from Safek Tum'ah (even in a
Reshus ha'Yachid) from "al ha'Aretz" - Tosfos is uncertain whether this
preclusion will also incorporate a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that
is traveling through the air or not.
2. ... "(be'Chol) ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al *ha'Aretz*" - that only Vaday
touching renders him Tamei (wherever it is), but a Safek only when it is on
the ground (i.e. not moving, but not when it is floating on water).
1. ... "Ach Ma'ayan u'Bor Yih'yeh Tahor" - that a Sheretz floating in water
that (like a spring) is not in a vessel is Tahor.
2. ... "Yitma" - that if it is floating in water that is inside a vessel, it