תלמוד על נזיר 9:1

²⁹A parallel but quite different treatment of this subject is in Nazir 9:3, Notes 119–134. The Babli (Bava qamma 81a) notes that one of Joshua’s stipulations was that a “corpse of obligation”, an unattended corpse found far from any organized settlement, must be buried on the spot it was found. There, we have stated³⁰Mishnah Nazir 9:3.: “If somebody find a corpse in original position, lying as usual³¹With his limbs stretched out, not in a compressed position which would characterize the corpse as Gentile., he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him³²An unqualified statement. and his surroundings.” And how much? Rebbi Samuel³³He is R. Samuel ben Rav Naḥman. in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, this is not reasonable; it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you would say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field³⁴By digging a rather deep hole in the middle of somebody else’s field., would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah³⁵Since the Mishnah tells one to remove the corpse, it must be done with minimal disturbance of the field, which cannot refer to a corpse of obligation.. Rav Ḥisda said, it follows him who said, it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation; I am saying that he was buried on a permitted path³⁶A “permitted path”, also mentioned in the next condition imposed by Joshua, is a path through a grain field between harvest and the early rains, when the field is empty and traditionally everybody has permission to walk through the field. R. Ḥisda now holds that the Mishnah does not prove anything about a corpse of obligation; it could have been that a person was buried there during the time of permission with the intention of removing it later to a cemetary, but that something then intervened; the people knowing about the corpse died, and the provisional grave was forgotten.. But whould one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent³⁷Practically they never happen; the Mishnah certainly is not formulated for them..

HALAKHAH: “If he said: ‘this cow said,’ ” etc. If he saw a Gentile passing by and said, “look what this Gentile said.³⁶It is understood that he said: “look what this Gentile said, I shall be a nazir.”” Then he is a nazir. Does this mean that he is a nazir because Gentiles cannot make a vow of nazir³⁷Mishnah 9:1. Therefore, any vow of nazir must be the Jew’s.? He has not said anything! Let us hear from the following: “If he said: ‘this cow said’ ”. You said this only because he spoke the word nezirut. And here, he spoke the word nezirut³⁴The rancher has trouble to make the cow get on her feet; he says, it seems to me that the cow made a vow to be nezirah if she be standing up. For the House of Shammai, he used the word nazir; for the House of Hillel what he said was meaningless.. If he saw a Jew passing by and said, “look what this Jew said.³⁸He attributed to him a vow of nazir.” Then he is a nazir. He³⁹The passer-by. had not said anything. Does this mean that he is a nazir because Jews make a vow of nazir? Should we say that nevertheless he is a nazir or is he studying the case? So I am saying, “for example, if he was reading the Torah and mentioned nazir,naziq.⁴⁰Chapter 1, after Note 10. Since in that case he is not a nazir, he cannot be a nazir in the present case.”

If the public became impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem 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 impurity¹⁶⁸Since a single person impure on the 14th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ, his standing is inferior to that of the public who celebrate the First Pesaḥ in impurity., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss¹⁶⁹The case of a grave in the abyss can arise only in a private domain since in a public domain all doubts are automatically resolved in favor of purity (Sotah 1:2, Note 88). For a private person, a case of doubt in matters of a grave in the abyss in a private domain is treated as if it were occurring in the public domain., for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity¹⁷⁰In that they may bring the Pesaḥ in impurity., it only is logical that you should clarify it to its advantage in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public¹⁷¹This is how one intends to disprove the argument de minore ad majus.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him¹⁷²The impurity of a grave in the abyss never forces a person to the Second Pesaḥ; so if he was told before pouring it is as if he became otherwise impure after pouring, where the sacrificial act was completed and while he cannot eat his part of the Pesaḥ he has discharged all his obligations. before pouring he should be treated as if he became impure after pouring, that he should not be pushed to the Second Pesaḥ, you restrict him in public, so that if it became known to him after pouring he should be treated as if he became impure before pouring, that he should not be able to eat the meat¹⁷³If the public are impure, the Pesaḥ 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, so that if it became known to him before pouring he is treated as impure after pouring, that he should not have to bring a sacrifice of impurity¹⁷⁴Mishnah Nazir 9:2. Corrector’s addition supported by K., you treat as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after pouring he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure; he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case¹⁷⁵But if the nazir 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 case¹⁷⁶Nazir Halakhah 6:8, Note 198..] If somebody is officiating for the Pesaḥ, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since for the owner [of the Pesaḥ] whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged¹⁷⁷While a person unable to eat the volume of an olive of the Pesaḥ may not subscribe to it, an old or sick priest is able to serve in the Temple as long as his infirmity is not of the kind listed in Lev, 21:18–20., 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. Since for the owner you clarify to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; what can you say for the officiating where you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year¹⁷⁸An impure person, including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead, can send his sacrifice other than the Pesaḥ to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity.. Since you clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify his position to his disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? For you¹⁶⁵Both for the person going to celebrate the Pesaḥ 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 Num. 9:9 could have stated that a person on a far trip was required to celebrate the Second Pesaḥ. 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 81b., whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought to say, on him¹⁶⁶Num. 6:9., 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 other¹⁷⁹Babli 80b..