ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 64
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Kol ha'Nitalin ve'ha'Nigrarin
S'feikan Tamei' - he means that if someone is carrying or dragging a Sheretz
in the water, and there is a Safek whether the person standing in the water
touched it or not, he is Tamei.
When the Tana adds to the Din of Ma'ahil al Tum'as ha'Meis, 'Kol Davar
she'Metamei mi'Lema'alah le'Matah' - he is referring to the various Tum'os
of Zav (other than touching) such as Tum'as Heset (moving something), Tum'as
Mishkav and Tum'as Medras.
(b) We will reconcile this with what we just learned (that Safek Tum'ah by
floating Tum'ah is Tahor) - by stressing that here (unlike in the previous
case) a person is holding the Tum'ah (which removes it from the category of
(c) If (under the same circumstances) the person is standing in the water,
and someone throws across the water ...
1. ... a Sheretz (regarding Safek Negi'ah) - he is Tahor. Note: It would
seem that according to Tosfos, who, at the foot of the previous Amud, was
uncertain about this Din, this statement did not appear in the text.
(d) If the person is walking in the water and the Sheretz is still - the Din
will be exactly the same as in the reverse case.
2. ... a k'Zayis min ha'Meis (regarding Safek Ohel) - he is Tamei, because,
as we learned earlier, the Din of 'floating' is confined to Tum'as Sheretz
(which, according to our text in the following Sugya, means Tum'as Maga),
but does not extend to Tum'as Meis (i.e. Tum'as Ohel).
(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a k'Zayis Meis in a box which is floating on
the water - is considered static, since it is in a box, or floating, since
the box itself is floating.
(b) Based on the assumption that in the first She'eilah, we go after its
position in the box (and the k'Zayis Meis is considered static) - he asks
what the Din will be if the k'Zayis Meis is lying on a Sheretz, which might
also be considered like a box, since the one is the source of a one-day
Tum'ah, and the other, of a Tum'ah of seven days; or which might be
considered one entity, since they are both Tum'os (in which case, the top
Sheretz will be considered to be floating).
(c) A Sheretz on a Neveilah might also be considered as if it was in a box,
despite the fact that both are sources for Tum'os that last one day -
because they have different Shiurim (a Sheretz k'Adashah, Neveilah, a
(a) A Sheretz floating on a Sheretz might be considered less static than a
Sheretz on a Neveilah, because there is no difference between them (and it
is as if they were both lying on the water). It might nevertheless be
considered as if the top Sheretz was lying in a box - because, when all's
said and done, they are two independent entities.
(b) A Sheretz on ...
1. ... a melted Neveilah might be less static than a Sheretz on a Sheretz -
because, since it is a liquid, the melted Neveilah merges with the water.
(c) Assuming that even Shichvas Zera that has left the body is considered
food with regard to Tum'ah and the Sheretz is therefore considered static,
Mei Chatas (which is certainly not considered a food) might well be
considered part of the water, and a Sheretz that is on top of it will be
considered to be moving. On the other hand, even Mei Chatas might be
considered like a vessel in this regard - because the ashes with which it is
mixed, renders it thick, giving it the Din of a solid.
2. ... Shichvas Zera might be less static than on a melted Neveilah (even if
the latter is considered like food, whose Tum'ah is a k'Zayis [as we wrote
earlier]) - because we would not have thought to label Shichvas Zera as
(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos is - Teiku ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos
(a) Rav Hamnuna says that a Nazir and someone who wants to bring his Korban
Pesach who walked over a Kever Tehom on their seventh day (after they had
been sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah) are Tahor - because
Tum'as Tehom does not have the power to demolish the Taharah.
(b) Rav Hamnuna answers ...
1. ... Rava, who queries him from our Mishnah, which ruled (with regard to
Tum'as Tehom by a Tamei Meis) 'she'Chezkas Tamei, Tamei ... ' - that the
Mishnah speaks when the Nazir has not even Toveled (and certainly not
shaved), whereas he is speaking after he shaved (giving him a Chezkas
2. ... Abaye, who queries him from the fact that, in any case, they are
still lacking Ha'arev Shemesh (the advent of nightfall) - that seeing as
Ha'arev Shemesh comes automatically (i.e. it does not require an act on the
Nazir's part), it is not considered lacking.
(a) When the Tana in the Beraisa says (regarding a woman who gives birth to
a second child needs to bring a second Korban of not) ...
1. ... 'Yom Me'los, Tavi' - he means that a woman who gave birth to a second
baby on the eighty-first day after the first, is obligated to bring two
(b) The Tana then goes on to learn from the Pasuk "u'vi'Me'los Yemei
Taharah" - that should she give birth to a second baby, say, on the
sixty-fourth day after the first, and again on the sixty-fourth day after
the second, that it is still called 'Toch Me'los' and she only brings one
2. ... 'Toch Me'los, Lo Tavi' - that if the second baby was born before the
eighty-first day, she only needs to bring one Korban.
(a) We ask 'Hasam Nami Mechusar Ha'arev-Shemesh" (a term that would hardly
be applicable if the woman Toveled sixty-seven days earlier, in which case
she would be a 'Tevulas-Yom Aruch') - we are speaking when she did not Tovel
on the fourteenth day, as she should have, but on the eighty-first (Tosfos).
(b) Ha'arev-Shemesh is a bigger Chesaron than Tevilah, seeing as it is out
of her hands, whereas regarding Tevilah, the Mikvah is there, and all she
needs to do is to enter it (Tosfos). Note: It nevertheless seems strange to
refer to someone who needs to Tovel as not being a Chesaron.
(c) The reason that (despite the fact that this latter case is lacking
Tevilah and even Ha'arev Shemesh) Rav Kahana gives to differentiate between
it(where she does not need to bring a second Korban), and that of 'Yom
Me'los' (where she does) is - that in the latter case, she is not yet fit to
bring her Korban, whereas in the former case, she is.
(d) Abaye then answers the Kashya that there too, she is lacking
Ha'arev-Shemesh - by pointing out that Ha'arev-Shemesh comes automatically,
a proof that he accepted Rav Hamnuna's answer, and retracted from his
(a) Someone who discovers a solitary buried corpse, lying in a normal
position - is obligated to move him together with some of the earth on which
he is lying, to a regular burial-site.
(b) When he says 'bi'Techilah' - the Tana means that it was not previously
known that he was buried there.
(c) We will reconcile this Mishnah with the Sugya in Sanhedrin, which
forbids moving a corpse from one place to another - by establishing the
latter in the case of a corpse who was known to have been buried there
(d) The reason for the Din of 'Nimtza' is - that he was probably buried
there temporarily (Tosfos).
(a) The same applies to someone who finds two corpses. But if he finds
three - he is forbidden to move them, provided they are placed not less than
four Amos apart and not more than eight (this will be discussed in more
detail in Bava Basra).
(b) He is obligated to search - twenty Amos in all directions (see Rosh) in
case he has come across a 'Shechunas Kevaros' (an extended burial-site
consisting of a number of burial-chambers).
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah adds 'she'Raglayim le'Davar', she'Ilu Techilah
Matz'o Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' - he means that the obligation to search twenty
Amos is logical, since the discovery of the third grave constitutes hard
evidence that this is indeed a Shechunas Kevaros.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, asks the Sugya in Bava Basra, the discoverer
should have been obligated to search twenty-two Amos, rather than twenty -
because Rebbi Shimon gives the measurement of each cave (containing the
graves, as eight by six Amos). Consequently, the two eight-Amah caves (one
of which he discovered, the other, which he is searching for), plus the
six-Amah Chatzer in the middle, totals twenty-two Amos.
(b) We answer there - that Chazal only required a twenty-Amah search (and
not twenty-two), because it was common for one of the caves to be designated
for still-born babies, in which case, it was no more than four by six Amos
(reducing the total length by two Amos.
(c) And we reconcile the Mishnah with the Rabbanan, in whose opinion each
cave is only four by six Amos, and not six by eight, and in which case, the
measurement ought to have been eighteen Amos (rather than twenty) - by
establishing that he searched the first twenty Amos diagonally (turning the
six Amos into eight).