Yerushalmi Nazir 9:2 ירושלמי נזיר ט׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: If a nazir was informed that he was impure after he had shaved⁴⁵After he had finished his nezirut and has reverted to profane status. and it was a known impurity he cancels⁴⁶He has to repeat the entire period of nezirut., but if it was impurity of the abyss⁴⁷If the source of impurity was only detected after he had shaved in purity. he does not cancel. If it was before he shaved, he cancels in any case. How is that? If he went to immerse himself in a cave⁴⁸A miqweh in a cave. It seems that in the Judean and Galilean hills practically all miqwaot were in caves. where a corpse was floating at the entrance, he is impure⁴⁹Even if there is a doubt whether the corpse already was there when he immersed himself, or if the corpse was there whether it floated outside the cave (when it would have transmitted impurity only by touch) or was inside (where the cave created the impurity of a “tent” and everybody under the “tent” became impure.). If it was found buried in the ground and he went there to refresh himself⁵⁰And did not take sufficient care about his purity., he is pure, but to purify himself from the impurity of the dead he is impure⁵¹In any case of probable impurity caused by a buried corpse one continues in the prior state. since the presumptive state of the impure is impure and the presumptive state of the pure is pure, for it is not unsubstantiated⁵²Since his prior state is known but his actual state in doubt, the certainly known is preferred to the doubtful..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna of “when he had shaved, before he shaved”⁵³That the final act of nezirut which returns the nazir to normal life is shaving.? Rebbi Eliezer! But for the rabbis it would be before the blood was sprinkled for him⁵⁴Mishnah 6:13: The Sages say that a person who became impure after one kind of sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar for him can bring his remaining sacrifices after he was purified but does not have to start anew.. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason? “The nazir shall shave the hair of his crowned head.⁵⁵This is a telescoped version of Num: 6:18: “The nazir shall shave his crowned head at the door of the Tent of Meeting, take the hair of his crowned head and put it in the fire under the well-being sacrifice.”” The Torah made his nezirut dependent on his hair.

If he completed his nezirut but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a possible case of a grave in the abyss, he cancels. If he designated his sacrifices but did not manage to shave before he was informed about a grave in the abyss⁵⁶Can designating the sacrifices be considered as liquidation of the status of nazir to free the person from repeating in case of a possible impurity from a hidden source?? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana: Is that not the Mishnah? Whether he shaved or did not shave following Rebbi Eliezer, or whether it happened before or after blood was sprinkled according to the rabbis⁵⁷The Mishnah makes it quite clear that only shaving (according to R. Eliezer) or sprinkling of blood (according to the rabbis) is counted; dedicating the sacrifices does not mean anything in this respect.!

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open⁵⁹This and the following paragraphs are copied from Pesaḥim 7:7. In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice 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 the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. 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, Pesaḥim 81b.
What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9: “If a person dies suddenly on him”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open:.

So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

⁶⁰While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶²About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to 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 impurity⁶³A single person impure on the 14^th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14^th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14^th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss⁶⁴If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”
The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.
The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice 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 is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹But if the impure 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 case⁷⁰Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating⁷¹The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷²The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., 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. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, 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 other⁷⁵Babli Pesaḥim 80b..

“What is a grave of the abyss? A corpse buried in stubble, straw, dust, or pebbles⁷⁶Tosephta Zabim 2:9; quoted in the Babli, 63b and Pesaḥim 81b, without further discussion. As explained in the next paragraph, a “grave of the abyss” is that of a person killed by an accident not witnessed by anybody. If one finds a corpse buried under a heap of straw, one has to assume that he suffocated when the straw fell on him. A corpse buried in dust or pebbles probably was the victim of an accident.. But if it was buried in water, a dark spot, or rock crevasses, it does not create a grave of the abyss⁷⁷In this case, the person also probably was the victim of an accident. But since it could have been seen by a passer-by, the competent authorities should have been alerted; this is not an unknown body..” The principle: Any place from where it can be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it cannot be removed does not create a grave of the abyss⁷⁸Obviously, the clauses in this sentence are switched (here and in Pesaḥim). As explained in the preceding notes, one must read: “Any place from where it cannot be removed creates a grave of the abyss; any place from where it can be removed does not create a grave of the abyss.” A corpse whose existence is unknown cannot be removed.. Can stubbles and straw not be removed? Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded⁷⁹This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one handbreadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no “tent” and the impurity entends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as טוּמְאָה רְצוּצָה “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut 15:1,5,6; Halakhah 7:3, Note 164). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust⁸⁰Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta.. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.⁸¹Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5; quoted in the Babli Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded⁸²Straw covered with mats is not considered filling.. Come and see: If he [filled]⁸³Reading from Pesaḥim, required by the text. In Nazir, “covered”. it with mats it is not disregarded⁸⁴Filling the “tent” with mats creates “broken impurity”., if he covered it with mats it is disregarded⁸⁵If the floor is covered with mats, anything below the mats is disregarded concerning impurity.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic⁸⁶No ruling is available in this case.. Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets⁸⁷This translation is tentative, it follows the Pesaḥim text, reading רַקּ. The Nazir text reads ריק, which cannot be רִיק “emptiness”, nor רֵיק “empty”, nor רוֹק “spittle”..

⁸⁸Tosephta Zabim 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 81b.“What is a grave of the abyss? Any which nobody remembers.” Should we not be cautious and say, maybe one at the end of the world⁸⁹He might know of the grave even if we do not.? And is the permanence of the living not like living⁹⁰Cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,87. If any person left from here, when that person left he was alive and we have to apply the legal principle of permanence of the status quo and consider him permanently alive, disregarding the notion of “unknown grave”.? Explain that he was found compressed⁹¹Which clearly shows that he was not buried by humans but was the victim of an accident. Since the accident was not noticed when it occurred, there is nobody “at the end of the world” who would know of it..

It was stated: “Only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss.”⁹²Tosephta Zabim 2:9, quoted Babli Pesaḥim 80b. Therefore, not a carcass⁹³Obviously, only a human corpse has a grave that presents problems of impurity. A buried animal carcass does not produce impurity. Carcasses cause impurity only when touched or carried. The meaning of this sentence can be clarified: Only for the impurity of the dead do we find a rule that sometimes allows one to disregard biblical impurity.. Would it not be a conclusion de minore ad majus? Since a corpse, which does not cause impurity of couch and seat, creates a grave of the abyss, should a carcasss which causes impurity of couch and seat not create a grave of the abyss? Why was it said that only a corpse creates a grave of the abyss? To exclude couch and seat⁹⁴This argument, equally found in Pesaḥim, does not make any sense. There are several distinct ways to emend the passage to create sense; therefore, no textual emendation is proposed but the meaning can easily be clarified.
A person who is the source of his own impurity (a male or female sufferer from genital discharges) causes original impurity to any couch or personal seat he is using (Lev. 15:4–6,21–22,26). But any impurity induced on an inanimate object by a corpse is only derivative. The argument shows that the rules of the impurity of the dead and impurity produced by a living human body are not comparable: Each kind of impurity has its own severities and leniencies not found in the other..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said that Bar Piqa asked Rebbi: So far in a cave that had a ceiling⁹⁵This refers to the Mishnah about the person who immersed himself in water in a cave in which a corpse was later found.. Even in a cave without ceiling⁹⁶Is he impure only because of the “tent” impurity induced by the ceiling of the cave or is he impure since he might have touched the corpse without noticing? A “cave without ceiling” seems to be a pond.? Does Bar Piqa think that if there is a doubt regarding floating impurity, it is pure? Rebbi told him, Bar Piqa remains in his stupidity: No case of doubt regarding floating impurity is declared pure except a reptile⁹⁷Or any similar impurity which is removed by immersion in water without delay or further ceremony.; but a corpse is like something fixed in place. As it was stated⁹⁸The meaning of this baraita, formulated differently, is found in Tosephta Ṭaharot 5:6–7 and in the Babli, 63b–64a.: “Anything thrown⁹⁹An impure item thrown over a person and it is not clear whether he or she was touched by the item or not. is pure in case of a doubt except an olive-sized piece from a corpse, [and] also those covers¹⁰⁰Those whose impurity is generated by their bodies (Note 93) who cause original impurity to what is below (the couch or seat) and above (the clothing) their persons. which induce impurity on bottom and top.”

Does this¹⁰¹Since the Mishnah states that he is impure but not, speaking of a nazir, that he has to shave, do we have to read the Mishnah as equating this impurity to those mentioned in Chapter Seven for which the nazir does not have to shave? not disagree with Rebbi Joshia, since Rebbi Joshia said¹⁰²Chapter 7:3, Note 176., if impurity is hidden in the ground below the house, the nazir shaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, here on the side, there on place¹⁰³The Mishnah deals with a doubt of impurity; R. Joshia speaks of “squeezed impurity”, which is certain.. Rebbi Ezra said in the name of Rebbi Yudan: Even if you say in both cases on the side, in both cases on place. What means “impure”? Impure and he does not shave¹⁰⁴The Mishnah has to be read as meaning: “He is impure and, if a nazir, has to shave.”?