(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.
When would he not need to do this?

(b) When would he have to demolish his Nezirus even for Tum'as Tehom?

(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.
Why is that?

(d) Why is the k'Zayis of Meis not considered Tum'as Tehom?

(a) What will be the Din 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?
  2. ... to Tovel for Tum'as Meis? Why the differene?
(b) Why does the Reisha of our Mishnah refer to someone who Toveled for Tum'as Sheretz, and the Seifa, when he Toveled to cool down?

(c) How does ...

  1. ... Rebbi Elazar attempt to extrapolate Tum'as Tehom from the Pasuk Naso "ve'Chi Yamus Meis *Alav* be'Fesa Pis'om"?
  2. ... Resh Lakish extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ish Ish Ki Yih'yeh Tamei la'Nefesh O *be'Derech* Rechokah"?
(d) In Pesachim, Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish do not argue, whereas in our Sugya they do.
What is the basis of the Machlokes between the two Sugyos?
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa defines Tum'as Tehom as Tum'ah that was unknown to anybody in the world.
Why does that pose a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who learns from "Alav")?

(b) What does the Tana of a Beraisa say about a Meis that was discovered buried lying across a narrow street with regard to ...

  1. ... a Kohen who wanted to eat Terumah?
  2. ... a Nazir or someone who was about to bring his Korban Pesach?
(c) How does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on both opinions Rebbi Elazar and Resh Lakish?

(d) So what is the source for Tum'as Tehom (that will justify the two Beraisos)?

(a) Our Mishnah gives the criterion for the discovery as being the shaving. Why must the author be Rebbi Eliezer? What does he say?

(b) What would be the criterion according to the Rabbanan?

(a) What distinction does Rebbi Eliezer draw between a Nazir who became Tamei Meis during the Me'los of his Nezirus and after the Me'los?

(b) Will it make any difference whether it is ordinary Tum'ah or Tum'as Tehom?

(c) What She'eilah did Rami bar Chama ask with regard to someone who became Tamei Meis during the Me'los but only found out about it after the Me'los?

Answers to questions



(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.
How can Rava say 'I de'Isyada Lei be'Soch Me'los, Tzericha Lemeimar'?, seeing as the Tana needs to teach us the case where Tum'as Tehom applies?

(b) What would the Din be according to the Rabbanan, if the Nazir became Tamei after the Me'los?

(c) On what grounds do we ...

  1. ... initially refute Rava's proof from our Mishnah to resolve our She'eilah?
  2. ... ultimately vindicate him?
(a) We learned earlier that if one discovers a corpse buried across the street, any 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 is Tahor. Why is that? How can we be so lenient even by Terumah d'Oraysa?

(b) Under which circumstances does the Tana permit the Kohen to eat Terumah even if the corpse took up the entire width of the street?

(c) And under which circumstances will this leniency not apply even to a Kohen who walked past that spot without carrying a load?

(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.
Why is that?

(a) Why is it that, 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?

(b) Does Tum'as Tehom apply to Tum'os other than Tum'as Meis?

(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.
What will be the Din 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?

(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.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) What does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk in Shemini ...

  1. ... "*be'Chol* ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz (al ha'Aretz)"?
  2. ... "(be'Chol) ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al *ha'Aretz*"?
(d) Now that we preclude a floating Sheretz from Safek Tum'ah (even in a Reshus ha'Yachid) from "al ha'Aretz", will this preclusion also incorporate a Sheretz that someone has thrown and that is traveling through the air?
10) And what does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk there ...
  1. ... "Ach Ma'ayan u'Bor Yih'yeh Tahor?"
  2. ... "Yitma?"
Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,