ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 65
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah said 'ha'Motzei Meis ... Mushkav ke'Darko Notlo
ve'es Tefusaso'. Rav Yehudah precludes from ...
The reason of the Tana in the Beraisa quoted by Ula, which exempts from both
the Din of 'Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' and of 'Shechunas Kevaros' ...
1. ... 'ha'Motzei' - a corpse that was known to be buried there.
(b) The reason for these exceptions is - because Jews do not bury their dead
that way, so the corpse must be that of a Nochri (except the first one,
which must be a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai').
2. ... 'Meis' - someone who was slain.
3. ... 'Mushkav' - a corpse that was buried in a sitting position.
4. ... 'ke'Darko' - one whose head was placed between his knees.
(c) 'Tefusaso' constitutes some of the earth is which the corpse is buried
(earth that is beneath the corpse, but not that at the side, which is Asur
mi'de'Rabbanan as long as the corpse is there).
1. ... a corpse that is incomplete - is because it is 'Halachah le'Moshe
2. ... two corpses that are buried side by side, one from north to south and
the other, from south to north is - because Jews do not bury like that, so
they must be the corpses of Nochrim (Rosh).
(a) The Tana also exempts all three corpses that one finds from both the Din
of 'Notlo ve'es Tefusaso' and of 'Shechunas Kevaros', if one of them was
known and the two were not - or if two of them were known and one was not.
(b) According to the Rashbam, this is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai';
according to the Ri - it is because, seeing as the reason for 'Notlo ve'es
Tefusaso' is due to the fact that the corpse was obviously only buried there
temporarily, had they meant to leave them there permanently, then the other
two would have been known, too (see also Rosh).
(c) When Rebbi Yeshevav wanted to make a Shechunas Kevaros out of the area
where he discovered one unknown corpse, in addition to the two that were
already known to be there, Rebbi Akiva told him - that all his efforts would
be in vain, since the Din of Shechunas Kevaros applied only if the three
corpses were either all known or all unknown.
(a) Rav Yehudah learns from the Pasuk (concerning Ya'akov's request from
Yosef not to bury him in Egypt) "u'Nesasani mi'Mitzrayim" - that when one
transports a Meis from one place to another, one takes some of the earth
with him (Tefusaso).
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) - besides all the soft earth, the
Tefusah also comprises the three Tefachim of virgin soil upon which the
corpse is lying, because that is how far down his juices seep down into the
ground (Tosfos quoting the Yerushalmi).
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok in a Beraisa, one takes the
Kismin and the K'sasos. The Kismin are the shards that remain from the
marble coffin - the K'sasos are the clods of earth.
(d) He throws away those clods of earth that are definitely not from the
Meis. Those that are ...
1. ... a Safek - he places in a discreet place (to prevent people who deal
with Taharos from becoming Tamei).
2. ... definitely from the corpse - combines with Rov Binyan, Rov Minyan or
Rova ha'Kav of bones (to be Metamei be'Ohel) or with Me'lo Tarvad Rekev.
(a) K'sasos cannot refer to spices that were placed in the coffin together
with the Meis - because they would become 'Galgalin' to the dust rather than
adding to it.
(b) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar (who gives the Shiur of
Tefusah as the soft earth plus three Tefachim of virgin soil) - because the
Tana does not require any virgin soil to be taken with the corpse at all.
(c) We resolve Rebbi Elazar with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - by
establishing him like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri (in another Beraisa) who,
quoting ben Azai, substantiates his opinion.
(a) Rava says that in the event of their having already discovered and moved
two single corpses, when they discover a third one - they are forbidden to
(b) Nor do they need to return the first two corpses.
(c) Some add to the text - 'u'Mashvi Lei Shechunas Kevaros' (obligating the
twenty-Amah search in any case) Tosfos.
(a) According to others, seeing as the first two corpses were removed
be'Heter, they are permitted to move the third one too - because the Din of
Shechunas Kevaros was never said in connection with one corpse (Tosfos).
(b) This second opinion is so lenient - because, as Resh Lakish explained,
they used any excuse to declare Eretz Yisrael Tahor (though this is really
an integral part of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai', and not a
(c) If they searched twenty Amos in one direction and did not find any more
graves, Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya) is quoted as saying, they are not obligated
to search in the other directions - for the same reason as Resh Lakish just
gave in the previous answer ( ... any excuse to declare Eretz Yisrael
(d) The second version of Rav (or Rav Mesharshaya)'s Chidush is - that if
they searched twenty Amos in one direction and did not find any more graves,
they do not need to dig downwards until they hit virgin soil or rocks
(a) 'Kol Safek Nega'im bi'Techilah ad she'Lo Nizkak le'Tum'ah, Tahor' -
speaks when two people appeared before a Kohen with a mark of Tzara'as, one
the size of a 'Gris' (the minimum size of a Tamei Tzara'as), the other, the
size of a Sela (which is larger than a G'ris). After one week, the mark of
both men is the size of a Sela (in which case one of them grew and is a sign
of Tum'ah, the other, remained as it was, and is a sign of Taharah; however,
the Kohen cannot recall which is which. Both are Tahor.
(b) The reason for this leniency is - because each one has a Chezkas
(c) 'mi'she'Nizkak le'Tum'ah, S'feiko Tamei' - speaks when one of the marks
was the size of a Sela, the other, the size of a G'ris, and after seven
days, both had grown to a Sela-plus, in which case, they are both Tamei. If
at the end of the second week, both are the size of a Sela, and the Kohen
cannot recall which is which, both of them remain Tamei.
(d) The reason for this is - because each of them has a Chezkas Tum'ah.
(a) The reason for going le'Kula in the first case in our Mishnah cannot be
due to the fact that, in the Pasuk "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o" the Torah begins
with Taharah, like Rav Yehudah Amar Rav initially proposes - because then,
we should always rule 'Tahor', even when there is a Chezkas Tum'ah.
(b) So Rav Yehudah Amar Rav must have been referring to Rebbi Yehoshua's
ruling. If the Baheres (one of the four possible marks of Tum'ah) ...
1. ... appeared first, and the two hairs turned white afterwards - he is
(c) If the order in which they occurred is a Safek, Rebbi Yehoshua said
'Kiyhah'. Assuming that he means 'Kiyhah ve'Tamei', he will be arguing with
the Tana Kama, who also holds 'Tamei' - in that, according to the Tana Kama,
he is Tamei mi'Safek, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua will hold that he is Tamei
2. ... appeared after the two hairs had already turned white - he is Tahor.
(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav however extrapolates from "le'Taharo O le'Tam'o"
that Rebbi Yehoshua must have meant 'Kiyhah ve'Tahor' - because the Torah
begins with Taharah to teach us that if the Safek is not Tamei Vaday, then
he is Tahor (but not Safek Tamei). Consequently, seeing as the Tana Kama
rules Tamei, Rebbi Yehoshua must mean 'Kiyhah ve'Tahor'.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that a Zav is examined in seven ways,
he means - that a Zav is only Tamei (Zivus) provided his emission is a
natural one, and that he is not an O'nes in one of those seven ways.
(b) The other three, besides food, drink, carrying and jumping - are
illness, seeing an act of intimacy (even by two animals, according to Rebbi
Yehudah) and immoral thoughts.
(c) This examination will not make any difference - once he is already a Zav
(through two sightings, who is Tamei but does not bring a Korban). In other
words, when he sees the third time, he becomes obligated to bring a Korban
even if he saw be'O'nes.
(d) The Tana also lists together with 'O'nes' - a Safek and the Shichvas
Zera of a Zav (which will explained in the Sugya).
(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who strikes his friend who, after
being assessed by Beis-Din that he will die, improves, then deteriotates and
dies, is Chayav Misah. Rebbi Nechemyah says here the same as the Chachamim
said in the previous case (of O'nes by a Zav at his third sighting) -
namely, that there is 'Raglayim le'Davar' (hard evidence) that in the one
case, he is a Zav, and in the other, that he it was not the stroke that
killed him, but some other weakness.
(b) Rebbi inserted the Mishnahs of 'ha'Motze Meis', 'Kol Safek Nega'im' and
'be'Shiv'ah Derachim Bodkin es ha'Zav' in this Perek - because of the Sevara
'Raglayim le'Davar', which they have in common with the previous Mishnah
(regarding the Shechunas Kevaros, which in turn, was learned in connection
with Tum'as Tehom, which is Tahor with regard to a Nazir and someone who is
bringing his Korban Pesach).
(a) The Torah writes in Tazri'a "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar
Both Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer)
agree that the Torah is comparing a Zav at some stage to a Zavah. The
leniency that applies to a Zav but not to a Zavah is - that of O'nes, which
does not prevent a woman from becoming Tamei.
(b) Rebbi Nasan Darshens from ...
1. ... "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo" - that both the first and the second sighting
will not render the Zav Tamei if he saw be'O'nes.
(c) According to Rebbi Elazar (or Rebbi Eliezer) says - who Darshens "es" to
include one extra sighting, the comparison to the Zivus of a woman will only
apply to the fourth sighting (should he see again after he is a full-fledged
Zav), and not to the third.
2. ... "la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" - that the third sighting (which is being
compared to that of a woman) will.