Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 66a

Raba said: Do not suppose [that the meaning of 'doubtful flux' is] that there is a doubt whether there was an issue or not. In point of fact, the issue must be a certain one,1  the doubt being whether it was due to an issue of semen2  or whether it was caused by [a separate gonorrhoeic] attack.3  Once uncleanness has been established, if there is a doubt, he is unclean.4

HIS ISSUE OF SEMEN IS UNCLEAN: In what respect [is the semen unclean]? For if it be in respect of touching it,5  how is it worse than the issue of semen of a clean person?6  — It must therefore mean that the semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles through being carried. But who is known to hold the view that the issue of semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles if carried? For if you say that it is the following Tanna, as has been taught: 'R. Eliezer says that the issue of semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea does not defile if carried, whilst R. Joshua says that it does defile if carried, because it is impossible that it should not be diluted with gonorrheic fluid' — even R. Joshua only says this7  because it is diluted with gonorrhoeic fluid, but not when it is undiluted?8  — In point of fact, said R. Adda b. Ahabah, [the purpose of the Mishnah is] to lay down that [subsequent gonorrhoeic issue] is not ascribed to [the prior flow of semen].9

R. Papa tried to argue with Raba that this10  was because the flow resulted from his weakness [following the gonorrhoea].11  Raba said to him: Have we not learnt: A proselyte defiles if subject to a gonorrhoeic flow immediately after conversion?12  — He replied: There cannot be greater sickness than this.13

We must say in fact14  that [to what extent semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles] is a controversy of Tannaim — For it has been taught: The semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea defiles for twenty — four hours15  if carried. R. Jose however, Says; for the whole of the same day.16

Wherein does their controversy lie?17  — In respect of the point raised by Samuel. For Samuel noted the following contradiction. It is written, If there be among you any man that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him by night [etc.]18  and it is written [further], when evening cometh on he shall bathe himself in water.19  The one who says twenty-four hours infers this from when evening cometh on,20  and the other infers it from, 'that which chanceth him by night'.21  Now to the one who infers it from 'when evening cometh on,' [it may be objected] it is written, 'that which chanceth him by night'? — He will reply that it is customary for an emission to occur at night.22

MISHNAH. SAMUEL WAS A NAZIRITE IN THE OPINION OF R. NEHORAI, AS IT SAYS, AND THERE SHALL NO RAZOR [MORAH] COME UPON HIS HEAD.23  IT SAYS WITH REFERENCE TO SAMSON, AND [NO] RAZOR [MORAH]24  AND IT SAYS WITH REFERENCE TO SAMUEL, AND [NO] RAZOR [MORAH]; JUST AS MORAH IN THE CASE OF SAMSON [IS USED OF] A NAZIRITE,25  SO [WE SHOULD SAY] MORAH IN THE CASE OF SAMUEL [IS USED OF] A NAZIRITE. R. JOSE OBJECTED: BUT HAS NOT MORAH REFERENCE TO [FEAR26  OF] A HUMAN BEING? R. NEHORAI SAID TO HIM: BUT DOES IT NOT ALSO SAY, AND SAMUEL SAID; 'HOW CAN I GO? IF SAUL HEAR IT HE WILL KILL ME'27  [WHICH SHOWS] THAT HE WAS IN FACT AFRAID OF A HUMAN BEING?28

GEMARA. Rab said to his son Hiyya:

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Examination must show the presence of gonorrhoeic matter.
  2. When it only adds one day to his period of counting.
  3. When he would have to begin to count his seven clean days over again, (v. Lev. XV, 13).
  4. And the gonorrhoeic matter is ascribed to an attack of gonorrhoea and not to the issue of semen.
  5. That one who touches the semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea becomes unclean.
  6. Which also renders unclean by contact. Lev. XV, 16, 17.
  7. Viz.: That the semen defiles if carried.
  8. Which is the case contemplated by the Mishnah. The question still remains, why does the Mishnah say that the semen of a sufferer from gonorrhoea is unclean?
  9. As would be the case for twenty-four hours after an emission of semen in the case of a normal person. v. Zabim II, 3.
  10. The reason that it is not ascribed to the issue of semen once gonorrhoea is established.
  11. And was due to the gonorrhoea and not a consequence of the emission of semen.
  12. Zabim II, 3; If an issue of semen preceded conversion and gonorrhoeic flow followed, it is not ascribed to the emission, but counts as a first gonorrhoeic flow.
  13. The emotional effect of the conversion is sufficient sickness to occasion the flow, but does not render it nugatory as the seven things of the Mishnah do (Rashi). Tosaf. achieves better sense by omitting 'he replied', and making the whole part of Raba's objection, viz.: 'Can there be greater weakness than that which results from the emotional effect of conversion?' and yet the flow is considered unclean. Hence R. Papa's reason is not correct.
  14. Although R. Adda attempted to argue to the contrary.
  15. I.e., if the semen issues within twenty-four hours of the gonorrhoeic flow.
  16. If it comes before the evening; here there is no mention of dilution of the semen by gonorrhoeic fluid. Thus these Tannaim differ from R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and the Mishnah represents their opinion, that the semen renders unclean if carried.
  17. The controversy of R. Jose and the other Tanna.
  18. Deut. XXIII, II. Interpreted as meaning: If he should chance to have an emission of semen during the day, consequent on a gonorrhoeic issue during the previous night.
  19. Ibid. v. 12.
  20. Which indicates that though night has already fallen he still remains unclean; i.e., until the end of the period of twenty — four hours.
  21. Which he interprets as meaning, 'until nightfall'; but as soon as night has fallen he becomes clean and an emission will not then defile, if carried.
  22. But there is no particular significance in the use of the word night.
  23. I Sam. I, 11.
  24. Judges XIII, 5. 'And no razor shall come upon his head'.
  25. Ibid. 'for the child shall be a nazirite unto God'.
  26. Reading [H] as [H] (fear) from [H] the verb having adopted a [H] ending: Jast. s.v. [H] II interprets from a root [H] meaning 'authority'.
  27. I Sam. XVI, 2.
  28. Lit., 'flesh and blood'. Hence morah cannot mean 'fear' or Hannah's prediction would have been false. It must therefore mean 'a razor'.

Nazir 66b

Snatch [the cup] and say grace.1  So also did R. Huna say to his son Rabbah. Snatch [the cup] and say grace.

Does this mean that it is better to say the blessing [than to make the responses]? Has it not been taught: R. Jose says that he who responds. 'Amen', is greater than he who says the blessing, and R. Nehorai said to him: I swear2  that this is so. In proof of this, [it may be noted] that the ordinary soldiers begin a battle but the picked troops gain the victory?3  — There is a difference of opinion between Tannaim on this matter. For it has been taught: Both the one who says the blessing and the one who responds, 'Amen', are included [in this verse].4  Nevertheless, [reward] is given first to the one who says the blessing.

R. Eleazar,5  citing R. Hanina, said: The disciples of the sages increase peace throughout the world, as it is said, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.6

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. You be the one who takes the cup of wine to say the grace, and let the others answer, 'Amen' to your blessings.
  2. Lit., 'by heaven'.
  3. A reference to the Roman practice of saving the veteran soldiers until the enemy's resistance had been weakened by the less experienced soldiers. We see then that the one who completes the blessing by responding is greater.
  4. Ps. XXXIV, 3, 'O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together'. (Rashi).
  5. V. Yeb. 122b.
  6. Isa. LIV, 13.