If a corpse shall die near him with unexpected suddenness, and make impure his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day he shall shave it” (Numbers 6:9). “If a corpse shall die near him” – this is in a case where the impurity is clear; to the exclusion of a case of uncertainty, this is the impurity of the depths.117When the nazir became impure from a concealed or buried corpse which nobody was aware of at the time the nazir came in contact with it.
Which is the impurity of the depths? It is any case where there is no one, even at the ends of the earth, who can identify it [the corpse]. If there were one at the ends of the earth who could identify it, this is not the impurity of the depths. If it was concealed in hay or pebbles, this is the impurity of the depths.
If it was in water, darkness, or boulder crevices, this is not the impurity of the depths. They said impurity of the depths only regarding a corpse alone. “With unexpected suddenness [befeta pitom],” Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Befeta, this is unwitting, as it says: “With suddenness [befeta], without enmity, he pushed him” (Numbers 35:22).118This is one of the examples of an unwitting murderer. Pitom, this is by force of circumstance, as it says: “The Lord said pitom to Moses, [Aaron and Miriam]” (Numbers 12:4).
The Rabbis say: Pitom is intentional, as it says: “But simpletons [uftayim] continued and were punished” (Proverbs 22:3). Alternatively, pitom, this is unwitting, as it is written: “A peti will believe anything” (Proverbs 14:15). If pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance and unwitting, why did the verse need to write befeta to include the unwitting?119The word pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance, or unwitting, so why did the verse also use the word befeta?
Had befeta not been written, I would have said that one brings an offering for his impurity where he was impure unwittingly, just as it is throughout the entire Torah, but if it was by force of circumstance or intentional, I would say that he is not. The All Merciful wrote peta, which is unwitting, to reveal regarding pitom, that it is by force of circumstance or intentional, and nevertheless, he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.
“And make impure his consecrated head, [he shall shave his head]” – regarding one who was ritually pure and became impure, he is obligated in the removal of hair and the bringing of an offering, and to exempt a nazirite located at a grave.120Who at the time of the vow was impure because he was in a graveyard. “He shall shave his head” – he shaves his head but he does not shave all his hair. “On the day of his purification,” it is on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh.
Do you say: On the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, or on the eighth? The verse states: “On the seventh day he shall shave it.” If on the seventh, even though he did not sprinkle? The verse states: “On the day of his purification” – on the day of his sprinkling.
“On the seventh day” – I have only the seventh, from where do I derive the eighth, ninth, and tenth?121That if he did not shave on the seventh day, he can shave at a later date. The verse states: “He shall shave it.” I have only during the day, from where do I derive at night? The verse states: “He shall shave it.”
I have only shaving in impurity, from where do I derive shaving in purity?122That he can shave at night also when he shaves in purity. The verse states: "He shall shave it." How so? He would sprinkle on the third and the seventh, shave on the seventh, and bring his offerings on the eighth. If he shaved on the eighth, he brings his offering on that same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.