Thrown or Established?
I was having some difficulty hearing parts of the live Nazir 64’s daf yomi shiur (which I join during carpool), so afterwards I listened to Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz’s presentation.
Here he is from 13:07 until 18:09.
The essential question is a seeming contradiction for Tosafot. On Nazir 64a, a brayta contrasts something impure which is picked up / dragged, as opposed to thrown:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַנִּיטָּלִין וְהַנִּגְרָרִין — סְפֵיקָן טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּמוּנָּחִין. וְהַנִּזְרָקִין — סְפֵיקָן טָהוֹר.
The Sages taught (Tosefta, Teharot 3:13): All items that impart impurity that are carried by human hand or that are dragged along are not considered floating impurities, despite the fact that they are in motion. Rather, in a case where there is uncertainty whether a carried or dragged item affected a person, the individual is rendered impure, because the items are considered as though they were at rest. And in the case of items that are thrown by people, in uncertain cases that pertain to them, the individual remains pure.
The brayta continues with exceptions. Meanwhile, Tosafot on the previous amud, Nazir 63b, had a doubt about impurity hovering in the air, rather than on the ground or water:
צפה אינו מטמא לענין שרץ דתניא ספק טומאה צפה בין בכלים - שיש מים בכלי ושרץ צף על פני המים ספק נגע בכלי ספק לא נגע או בקרקע במים שעל גבי קרקע ר"ש אומר בכלי טמא בקרקע טהור ודאי נגע טמא בכל מקום שהוא שורץ ספק נגע דוקא על הארץ טמא אם היא טומאה ברה"י אבל צפה שאינה קבוע לא דמספקא לן אי דוקא על פני המים מטהרינן או הוא הדין צפה באויר שזורקה אדם באויר מטהרינן ממעוטא דעל הארץ:
How could Tosafot doubt this, when something thrown is in the air? And there are various ways of resolving the question, reframing just what Tosafot is asking and how it differs from the brayta, or the principle on which it operates.
Since this Substack is called Scribal Error, you might guess where this is going? Perhaps in the girsa of Tosafot, the brayta did not say וְהַנִּזְרָקִין! (This wouldn’t fix mishnayot, but at least it wouldn’t be an explicit refutation in close proximity.)
Here is Hachi Garsinan, at a glance:
We have the two printings, and Vatican 110 in basic agreement. The possibly helpful manuscript in this instance is Munich 95. Yes, they have והנזרקין, but only with some difficulty.
The scribe here originally wrote והנזקקין, then used some extra ink to transform the first kuf into a resh, והנזרקין.
Would it make any sense in the context of the brayta, especially as it continues? I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to try to work it out. But the background is where someone is of a specific status, and then encounters various kinds of doubtful impurity. One can be nizkak, established, for tum’ah or tahara.
Consider the phrase in close proximity, two pages hence, Nazir 66a:
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא תֵּימָא סָפֵק חֲזָא סָפֵק לָא חֲזָא. אֶלָּא וַדַּאי חֲזָא, סָפֵק מֵחֲמַת שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, סָפֵק מֵחֲמַת רְאִיָּיה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְקַק לְטוּמְאָה — סְפֵיקוֹ טָמֵא.
Rava said: Do not say that it is uncertain whether he saw a discharge and uncertain whether he did not see one. The uncertainty is not with regard to whether he experienced a discharge at all. Rather, he certainly saw a discharge, but it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to, i.e., defined as, an emission of semen, and it is uncertain whether the discharge was due to the sighting of ziva. In this case, once he has been confirmed as being ritually impure as a zav, his uncertain case is also impure.
This may be the true girsa on 64a, or could have unduly influenced that scribe to initially miswrite the letter. Regardless, could such a girsa readily influence Tosafot’s explanation, since the brayta does not deal with nizrak?