|  |  | Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir ### Folio 65a HE MUST THEN SEARCH BEYOND FOR A DISTANCE OF TWENTY CUBITS.1 IF HE FINDS A SINGLE [CORPSE] AT THE END OF TWENTY CUBITS, HE MUST SEARCH BEYOND FOR ANOTHER TWENTY CUBITS. THE REASON2 IS THAT THERE IS [NOW] A PRESUMPTION,3 WHEREAS IF HE HAD FOUND IT FIRST, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REMOVE IT TOGETHER WITH THE SOIL IT OCCUPIES.4 GEMARA. Rab Judah said: IF A MAN FINDS, but not if [he knows] it is to be found there;5 A CORPSE, but not one who had been killed;6 LYING, but not seated;7 IN THE USUAL POSITION, but not with its head lying between its thighs.7 'Ulla b. Hanina taught: A defective corpse8 does not acquire the ground it occupies, nor does it help to form a graveyard site. Why does not [the law of the Mishnah] apply to all these? — Because we say that perhaps it is [the body of] a heathen.9 If he finds two [corpses] with the head of one beside the feet of the second, and the head of the second beside the feet of the first, they do not acquire the soil which they occupy and do not help to form a graveyard site.10 If he finds three [corpses] one of which was known to be there while the others [were found] for the first time, or if two [were found] for the first time and two were known [to be there] they do not acquire the soil they occupy11 and do not form a graveyard site. It is related that R. Yeshobab once searched [a certain spot] and found two [bodies] which were known to be there and one [which was discovered] for the first time, and he wanted to declare them a graveyard site.12 R. Akiba said to him: All your trouble was for nothing. [The Rabbis] did not declare a graveyard site save where three [corpses] were known to be there, or three [were found] for the first time.13 [IF HE FINDS] TWO, HE MAY REMOVE THEM TOGETHER WITH THE SOIL THEY OCCUPY: Where is this law of the soil [a corpse] occupies to be found?14 — R. Judah said: The verse says, Thou shalt carry me out of Egypt,15 [signifying] carry with me [some Egyptian soil].16 And what is the quantity of earth] which it occupies? — R. Eleazar17 explained that he takes the loose earth18 and digs up three finger-breadths of the virgin soil.19 The following objection was raised — [It has been taught:] And what quantity [of earth] are we to understand by 'the ground which it occupies?' R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok explained that he takes the chips [of the coffin]20 and the lumps of earth,21 discarding what certainly [did not belong to the body] and leaving whatever was doubtful [for removal].22 The remainder adds together to form the major part of the structure of the corpse, the quarter [kab] of bones and the spoonful of corpse — mould?23 — [R. Eleazar] agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: What quantity of [earth is meant by] 'the ground which it occupies?' R. Johanan,24 citing Ben 'Azzai, said: He takes the loose earth and digs up three finger-breadths of virgin soil. HE MUST THEN SEARCH BEYOND IT: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For other vaults. That he must continue to search if he finds one only. That the field is a graveyard site; since twenty cubits would not be an abnormal distance between two vaults; cf. supra p. 237, n. 5. Oh. XVI, 3. On the measurements v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 426 and notes. In that case he may not remove it (Tosaf.). In which case it is assumed that it was buried there for convenience and not that there was an old cemetery there. Jewish bodies were always buried prostrate; hence this cannot be an old Jewish cemetery. In these last three cases, he removes the body for reburial elsewhere. A corpse lacking a member essential to life. (Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2). Hence the site is not declared a Jewish cemetery and the bodies can be removed for burial elsewhere. Jews were not buried in this manner. Thus our text and Rashbam in B.B. 101b; but this as it stands contradicts our Mishnah, and it is therefore better to read with Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2 'Or if one (was found) for the first time and two were known, they are entitled to the ground they occupy, but do not form a graveyard site'. This would entail examining for twenty cubits. And whilst they may not be removed, they do not form a graveyard site. V. Tosef. Oh. XVI, 2 where the last paragraph occurs with variations. [So Aruch; cur. edd. 'What means the ground it occupies'?] Gen. XLVII, 30; spoken by Jacob to Joseph. Interpreting the verse, 'carry with me of Egypt'. R. Eleazar b. Pedath. Our texts have in error R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok. Formed through the decomposition of the body. This being the depth to which any blood etc., coming from the body would penetrate. Which was usually of stone (Tosaf.). Aliter The chips of spices put in with the body; cf. II Chronicles XVI, 14. Into which the decomposing corpse congealed. When the body was removed. Hence the part to be removed contained no virgin soil, contrary to the opinion of R. Eleazar. Required to propagate uncleanness in a tent. (V. supra 49b, 50a). Tosef. Oh. II, 2 with variations. R. Johanan b. Nuri. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nazir 65b Raba said: If he searched, [found a corpse]1 and removed it, searched [again and found another] and removed it, [and then] searched [again] and found [a third corpse], he must not remove this one [for reburial] with the other two,2 nor the other two [for reburial] with this one.3 Others say that Raba said: As permission had been given to remove [the others],4 he may remove them [all].5 But why should not [the field] become a graveyard site?6 — Resh Lakish said: [The Rabbis] seized upon any pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean.7 Suppose he searched [beyond it]8 for twenty cubits [in one direction only]9 and did not find [another corpse], what is the law?10 — R. Monashya b. Jeremiah, citing Rab, replied: This is the graveyard site.11 What is the reason [that we say this?]12 — Resh Lakish said: They seized on any pretext to declare the Land of Israel clean. MISHNAH. EVERY DOUBTFUL CASE OF [LEPROUS] DISEASE13 ENCOUNTERED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE UN CLEANNESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED14 IS CLEAN.15 AFTER UNCLEANNESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED DOUBTFUL CASES ARE UNCLEAN.16 GEMARA. How do we know this?17 — Rab Judah citing Rab, said: The verse says, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean.18 Scripture mentions cleanness first.19 In that case even after uncleanness has been established, doubtful cases should be clean?20 — We must therefore say that this dictum of Rab, quoted by R. Judah was uttered in connection with the following.21 [A Mishnah says:] If the bright spot22 appears before the white hair,23 he is unclean, but if the white hair appears before the bright spot he is clean. If there is a doubt, he is unclean. R. Joshua said: It is doubtful.24 What is meant by 'it is doubtful'? — Rab Judah25 replied: It is doubtful and [consequently] clean.26 May it not mean that it is doubtful and [consequently] unclean? — Rab Judah citing Rab said: The verse says, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean;27 Scripture mentions cleanness first.28 MISHNAH. A PERSON SUFFERING FROM A FLUX IS EX AMINED REGARDING SEVEN THINGS,29 BEFORE THE PRESENCE OF GONORRHOEA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED,30 VIZ.: — WITH REGARD TO FOOD,31 DRINK, BURDENS,32 LEAPING,33 SICKNESS, A VISION34 OR AN IMPURE THOUGHT.35 ONCE GONORRHOEA IS ESTABLISHED, HE IS NO LONGER EXAMINED. [FLUX RESULTING] FROM AN ACCIDENT36 TO HIM, DOUBTFUL [FLUX].37 AND HIS ISSUE OF SEMEN ARE UNCLEAN, FOR THERE IS A PRESUMPTION [OF UNCLEANNESS].38 IF A MAN GIVES ANOTHER A BLOW FROM WHICH HE WAS EXPECTED TO DIE AND HE PARTIALLY RECOVERED AND THEN GREW WORSE AND DIED [THE OTHER] IS LIABLE [FOR MURDER]. R. NEHEMIAH EXEMPTS HIM SINCE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION [IN HIS FAVOUR].39 GEMARA. How do we know this?40 — Nathan said: The verse says. And of the gonorrhoeic41 that have the issue,42 [whether it be a man or a woman].43 [The male] at his third experience of issue is compared to the female.44 But have we not been taught: R. Eliezer Says: At the third [issue] we examine him but not at the fourth?45 In point of fact they disagree on [the question of stressing the particle] 'the'.46 R. Eliezer lays stress on [the particle] 'the', whilst the Rabbis do not do so. [FLUX RESULTING] FROM AN ACCIDENT TO HIM, DOUBTFUL FLUX: - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For the first time. Since the region is now revealed as a graveyard site. Once removed legally they need not be brought back. I.e., since the removal of the two was legal. The third corpse counts as newly found. Since three bodies have been uncovered in it. I.e. in order to declare a region in the land of Israel clean, the least pretext was considered sufficient. Rashi suggests another rendering, viz.: 'They found a rib and declared the Land of Israel clean'; i.e., the Jews on entering Palestine found a human rib buried and thereupon declared the whole of the rest of Palestine clean, no further search after graveyard sites being necessary. Hence any pretext to avoid declaring parts of Palestine unclean will do. Referring to the Mishnah that he must search beyond the three corpses found to a distance of twenty cubits. Tosaf. v. next note. Must he search in other directions or not? (Tosaf.). Aliter. Do these three alone form a graveyard site or not? (Rashi). Aliter: If he has searched in all directions and found nothing, must he search more thoroughly and dig more deeply? (Asheri). But no other part of the field. I.e., why are we not stricter in our requirements? Referring to a doubt that has arisen as to whether an affected spot has spread or not (v. Lev. XIII), e.g., two persons are examined by a priest and have different-sized areas of disease. The following week both 'areas are the size of the larger of the two and the priest is uncertain which one has increased, v. Neg. V, 4. Lit., 'so long as he has not become bound to the uncleanness'. Before the patient has been declared unclean. Both men remain clean. If a similar doubt arises as to whether the diseased part has diminished in size. That there is any difference between the two cases quoted in the Mishnah. Lev. XIII, 59, concluding the chapter on the symptoms of leprous disease. Hence doubtful cases should also be regarded as clean. Thus there is no ground for basing the distinction on this verse. And the law of the Mishnah is not derived from a verse, but follows from the fact that in the first case there is no presumption of uncleanness and in the second case there is. Of leprous disease, v. Lev. XIII, 2. The symbol of uncleanness. Ibid. v. 3. Neg. IV, 11. The word rendered 'doubtful' is the technical term for 'dim' used of a diseased spot, (v. Lev. XIII, 6). For a discussion of the reading here v. Tosaf. Sanh. 87b, I.v. Parallel passages (Sanh. 87b) have Rabbah. I.e., it is considered to have become dim and is therefore clean. Lev. XIII, 59. The disease is to be pronounced clean unless it certainly has the symptoms of uncleanness described in that chapter. To determine whether any of these seven things was not the cause of the flux, as it would not then be evidence of gonorrhoea. I.e., before there has been a flux on three occasions, v. Zabim II, 2. Whether he had eaten too much. Whether he had carried heavy loads. Any kind of strain through physical exercise might cause flux. The sight of two people in coition. A similar thought. I.e., after one of the seven things mentioned. See the Gemara. V. Zabim II, 2. The recovery creates a presumption that death was not caused by the blow. [Maim. Yad., Rozeah, IV, 5 explains contrariwise: The fact that he ultimately died creates a presumption that death was caused by the blow, the last clause being thus explanatory of the views of the Rabbis.] That after gonorrhoea is established, he is not questioned as to possible causes. E.V. 'And of them'. Indicating the first issue. Expressed in Heb. by the nota accusativi, 'eth'. Indicating the second issue. Indicating the third issue; Lev. XV, 33. Who becomes gonorrhoeic whatever the cause. Hence at the third issue gonorrhoea is established whatever its cause. And on the present interpretation of the verse, he is not examined for the third issue. The Hebrew particle governing the accusative. This particle can be omitted and so its presence is taken by R. Eliezer to indicate another issue before the comparison is made of man with woman. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |