Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 16, 2015 | 讙壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 55

Correction: At the end of the shiur, I mentioned the pruification process of the metzor (leper) and the 2 shavings he needs to do. The first shaving is done immediately after the leprosy is healed. The second one is done after seven days.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讗

Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations not on foot but in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. What, is it not correct to say that they disagree in this regard: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems him impure, holds that the Sages decreed impurity with regard to the air, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages decreed impurity with regard to the earth, and consequently he is not impure, as the container prevents him from overlying the impurity?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讗 诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not necessarily the correct interpretation of their dispute, as one can say that everyone agrees that the decree is with regard to the earth, and their dispute concerns only the case of one who enters in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent, an item that serves as a tent as it passes over ritual impurity, is called a tent, and therefore a person who enters the land of the nations in a large container is protected from its impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent. Consequently, nothing separates this individual from the impurity, and he becomes impure by overlying the land of the nations.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讻诇讬诐 讜讝专拽讛 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪转 讘讗讛诇 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A box that is full of utensils that one threw over a corpse in a tent, in such a manner that it overlay the corpse, is impure, and everything inside it is also rendered ritually impure, as it does not provide the protection of a tent. And if it was placed down and positioned as a tent over a corpse, it is pure, and its contents are protected from the impurity. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a moving tent is not considered a tent, which contradicts the above claim.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

In light of this argument, the Gemara concedes that the previous explanation of the dispute is incorrect. Rather, one must say that everyone agrees that the decree of impurity concerning the land of the nations is with regard to its air, and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since it is not common for one to move around in an enclosure, the Sages did not decree impurity with regard to this case. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that although it is not common the Sages nevertheless decreed impurity with regard to it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟讛讜专 讘拽专讜谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讘讗讬住拽专讬讗 讟诪讗

The Gemara adds: And it is taught in the Tosefta (Oholot 18:5) in accordance with this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, a box, or a cabinet is ritually pure. If he was in a wagon [karon], boat, or raft [iskareya], he is ritually impure. The difference is that the latter vessels are commonly used to convey people.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇砖诐 驻诇讬讙讬

And if you wish, say an alternative explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Both agree that the ritual impurity of the land of the nations is with regard to the earth, and a moving tent is considered a tent. Therefore, the person in question should be ritually pure according to both opinions. However, here they disagree with regard to a different issue, the concern lest he remove his head and the majority of his body from the chest, box, or cabinet into there, i.e., the land of the nations.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诇砖诐 专讗砖讜 讗讜 专讜讘讜

And it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, a box, or a cabinet is pure, unless he actually removes his head or the majority of his body into the land of the nations. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure due to concern that one鈥檚 head might protrude from the container.

讜诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 诪讬住诇拽 谞诪讬 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna taught that a nazirite who became ritually impure through sources of impurity that do not cause him to forfeit his naziriteship, including his days of leprosy, starts counting again from the day of his purification, as his period of impurity does not count toward his naziriteship. Rav 岣sda said: They taught this halakha of a leper only with regard to a short naziriteship of thirty days, as he shaves his hair for purification from leprosy, and therefore he must count an additional thirty days to allow his hair to grow sufficiently to shave for his naziriteship. However, with regard to a lengthy naziriteship, when thirty days or more remain in his naziriteship after having shaved for his leprosy, those days also count toward his term, and he need not recount his days as a leper.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 拽讘注讬 讙讬讚讜诇 砖讬注专

Rav Sherevya raises an objection from the mishna: He starts counting immediately, and he does not negate the earlier days due to them. To what case is the mishna referring? If we say it is referring to a short naziriteship, he requires a thirty-day period of hair growth, and as he shaved for purification of his leprosy, he must negate the earlier days as a practical manner, to enable his hair to regrow.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘转 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讚讬转讬讘 注砖专讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讬讛 爪专注转 诪讙诇讞 爪专注转讜 讜讛讚专 讬转讬讘 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讚谞讝讬专 讚讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专

Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to a lengthy naziriteship, and nevertheless it teaches: He starts counting immediately, which indicates that his time as a leper is not included? Rav Sherevya raised the objection and he resolved it: The mishna is referring to a naziriteship of fifty days, in a case where he sat and observed twenty days of his vow, and at that point he developed leprosy. In that case, he shaves for his leprosy, and he again sits for thirty days as a nazirite. The problem of thirty days鈥 hair growth does not arise in this situation, as at the end of this period there is hair growth of thirty days.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽

Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection from a mishna (59b): With regard to a nazirite who has uncertain impurity from a corpse and whose status as a confirmed leper is uncertain,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 55

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘讬 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讗

Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations not on foot but in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. What, is it not correct to say that they disagree in this regard: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who deems him impure, holds that the Sages decreed impurity with regard to the air, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages decreed impurity with regard to the earth, and consequently he is not impure, as the container prevents him from overlying the impurity?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜砖讗 诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not necessarily the correct interpretation of their dispute, as one can say that everyone agrees that the decree is with regard to the earth, and their dispute concerns only the case of one who enters in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. One Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent, an item that serves as a tent as it passes over ritual impurity, is called a tent, and therefore a person who enters the land of the nations in a large container is protected from its impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent. Consequently, nothing separates this individual from the impurity, and he becomes impure by overlying the land of the nations.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 诪诇讗讛 讻诇讬诐 讜讝专拽讛 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪转 讘讗讛诇 讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 诪讜谞讞转 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A box that is full of utensils that one threw over a corpse in a tent, in such a manner that it overlay the corpse, is impure, and everything inside it is also rendered ritually impure, as it does not provide the protection of a tent. And if it was placed down and positioned as a tent over a corpse, it is pure, and its contents are protected from the impurity. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a moving tent is not considered a tent, which contradicts the above claim.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讬专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

In light of this argument, the Gemara concedes that the previous explanation of the dispute is incorrect. Rather, one must say that everyone agrees that the decree of impurity concerning the land of the nations is with regard to its air, and one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that since it is not common for one to move around in an enclosure, the Sages did not decree impurity with regard to this case. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that although it is not common the Sages nevertheless decreed impurity with regard to it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟讛讜专 讘拽专讜谉 讜讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讘讗讬住拽专讬讗 讟诪讗

The Gemara adds: And it is taught in the Tosefta (Oholot 18:5) in accordance with this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, a box, or a cabinet is ritually pure. If he was in a wagon [karon], boat, or raft [iskareya], he is ritually impure. The difference is that the latter vessels are commonly used to convey people.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 砖诪讗 讬讜爪讬讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇砖诐 驻诇讬讙讬

And if you wish, say an alternative explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. Both agree that the ritual impurity of the land of the nations is with regard to the earth, and a moving tent is considered a tent. Therefore, the person in question should be ritually pure according to both opinions. However, here they disagree with regard to a different issue, the concern lest he remove his head and the majority of his body from the chest, box, or cabinet into there, i.e., the land of the nations.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟讛讜专 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诇砖诐 专讗砖讜 讗讜 专讜讘讜

And it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, a box, or a cabinet is pure, unless he actually removes his head or the majority of his body into the land of the nations. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure due to concern that one鈥檚 head might protrude from the container.

讜诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 诪讬住诇拽 谞诪讬 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna taught that a nazirite who became ritually impure through sources of impurity that do not cause him to forfeit his naziriteship, including his days of leprosy, starts counting again from the day of his purification, as his period of impurity does not count toward his naziriteship. Rav 岣sda said: They taught this halakha of a leper only with regard to a short naziriteship of thirty days, as he shaves his hair for purification from leprosy, and therefore he must count an additional thirty days to allow his hair to grow sufficiently to shave for his naziriteship. However, with regard to a lengthy naziriteship, when thirty days or more remain in his naziriteship after having shaved for his leprosy, those days also count toward his term, and he need not recount his days as a leper.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 拽讘注讬 讙讬讚讜诇 砖讬注专

Rav Sherevya raises an objection from the mishna: He starts counting immediately, and he does not negate the earlier days due to them. To what case is the mishna referring? If we say it is referring to a short naziriteship, he requires a thirty-day period of hair growth, and as he shaved for purification of his leprosy, he must negate the earlier days as a practical manner, to enable his hair to regrow.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪转讞讬诇 讜诪讜谞讛 诪讬讚 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘转 讞诪砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讚讬转讬讘 注砖专讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诇讬讚讗 讘讬讛 爪专注转 诪讙诇讞 爪专注转讜 讜讛讚专 讬转讬讘 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讚谞讝讬专 讚讛讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专

Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to a lengthy naziriteship, and nevertheless it teaches: He starts counting immediately, which indicates that his time as a leper is not included? Rav Sherevya raised the objection and he resolved it: The mishna is referring to a naziriteship of fifty days, in a case where he sat and observed twenty days of his vow, and at that point he developed leprosy. In that case, he shaves for his leprosy, and he again sits for thirty days as a nazirite. The problem of thirty days鈥 hair growth does not arise in this situation, as at the end of this period there is hair growth of thirty days.

诪转讬讘 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讬讛 讟诪讗 讘住驻拽 讜诪讜讞诇讟 讘住驻拽

Rami bar 岣ma raised an objection from a mishna (59b): With regard to a nazirite who has uncertain impurity from a corpse and whose status as a confirmed leper is uncertain,

Scroll To Top