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

Daf Yomi

March 20, 2023 | 讻状讝 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 56

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan with gratitude to HKB”H for her recovery and return to health one year after being caught in a chlorine gas leak. “Thanks to my family and friends around the world for their unstinting encouragement and support.”

Two further questions are raised against Rav Chisda鈥檚 understanding of our Mishna from tannaitic sources. One relates to a case where one is a nazir and possibly became impure and possibly was a leper but is unsure. The other relates to the source for the law that the days of leprosy are not counted as days of the nazirite’s term. There are no resolutions to the difficulties. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the impurities for which the nazir needs to shave are the same impurities that one is liable by the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Impurities that the nazir does not need to shave for, are not punishable by karet if one enters the Temple with that state of impurity. Rabbi Meir raises a question on that – why would the latter category of impurity be more lenient than the light impurity of a sheretz, one of the eight creeping creatures who pass on impurity when dead? Why does our Mishna say that Rabbi Elazar quoted this law in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua when in the Tosefta it says that he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Mamel who heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua? We learn from here that when passing down a halacha in the name of a middle person who heard it from the source, one mentions the source and not the middle person from whom he learned it. Rabbi Akiva questions a law learned previously in the chapter – that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazir shave. The question is a logical one: if a bone the size of a barley grain causes a nazir to shave, even though it only passes on impurity by touching or carrying, wouldn’t a quarter-log of blood pass that passes on impurity also in a tent, also be a cause for the nazir to shave if he touches or carries it? Rabbi Yehoshua answered that while Rabbi Akiva’s logic may be sound, the tradition passed down is not that way.

讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐


he eats sacrificial food after sixty days, when the status of uncertain leprosy has passed, and when he has completed all his obligations of naziriteship. He cannot shave for his leprosy right away, as he might be a pure nazirite, and the status of uncertain leprosy does not override naziriteship. Instead, after thirty days he shaves for his uncertain status as a confirmed leper and for his uncertain status as a pure nazirite. Once again, he is not permitted to shave a second time seven days later for the shaving done by a leper as part of his purification process in case he was not a leper but impure. Were that the case, it would mean that the previous shaving was for his impurity, and therefore he would be required to observe naziriteship in purity for thirty days. At the conclusion of this period, i.e., the sixtieth day, he shaves and may eat sacrificial food on the following day, as even if he was a full-fledged leper he has now shaved twice.


讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐


And he drinks wine and may become impure to bury a corpse after 120 days. In other words, this individual has not yet completed his naziriteship vow, as he might have been a confirmed leper, in which case both his acts of shaving would have counted for his leprosy. He therefore waits another thirty days and proceeds to shave on day ninety. Even at that stage, he may not yet drink wine or contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as he might have been impure, which would mean that his third shaving was for his impurity. Consequently, he counts another period of thirty days for his naziriteship of purity, at the end of which he may perform the shaving of purity, drink wine, and become impure from a corpse, 120 days from the start of his naziriteship.


讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘转 砖谞讛 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐


And it is taught in the Tosefta (6:1) with regard to that mishna: In what case is this statement said? With regard to a short naziriteship of thirty days. However, with regard to a naziriteship of a year, he eats sacrificial food after two years. He cannot shave until a year has passed, in case he is not a leper, and he may shave the second time only after a second year, in case he was ritually impure, and this was his naziriteship observed in purity. After two years, he may eat sacrificial meat, for if he was a full-fledged leper he has shaved twice.


讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 诇讗讞专 讗专讘注 砖谞讬诐


However, if the first two shavings were for his leprosy, he has not shaved for his naziriteship at all, and therefore he must observe an additional year, shave, and observe another year of naziriteship, as perhaps his third shaving was for impurity and the other for his naziriteship in purity. And consequently, he may drink wine and become impure to bury a corpse after four years.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讬 转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐


And if it enters your mind that the days during which he was ritually impure count toward his naziriteship, it should be enough for him to observe three years and thirty days. Due to uncertainty, he cannot shave for his leprosy until a year has passed, in case he was a pure nazirite, and he must wait another year for his second shaving, as he might have been an impure nazirite. However, at that point, if the days of his counting are considered part of his naziriteship, as claimed by Rav 岣sda, he should be allowed to wait a mere thirty days for hair growth, shave for his impure naziriteship, and then add a final year for his naziriteship in purity. The fact that he is obligated to wait four years proves that his time as a leper does not count toward his naziriteship.


讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪谞讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪讛 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


And Rav Ashi raised a further objection from the following halakhic midrash: I have derived only that the days of impurity do not count as part of his tally of his naziriteship. From where do I derive that the days of his status as a confirmed leper also do not count toward his naziriteship? And is this not logical: After the days of impurity he shaves and brings an offering, and after his days of confirmed leprosy he likewise shaves and brings an offering; just as his days of impurity do not count as part of his tally, so too, the days of confirmed leprosy should not count as part of his tally.


诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 砖讻谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬诐 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉


The Gemara rejects this argument: No, if you say that this is true with regard to his days of impurity, which negate the previous days, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous ones, as stated in the mishna?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖砖注专讜 专讗讜讬 诇转讙诇讞转 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 砖注专讜 专讗讜讬 诇转讙诇讞转 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara suggests another proof. You can say it is an a fortiori inference: And if a nazirite who uttered his vow when he was in a ritually impure place, e.g., a place of a grave, whose hair is fit for the shaving of naziriteship, and yet those days when he was impure do not count as part of his tally, then with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, when his hair is not fit for the shaving of naziriteship, as he must first perform the shaving of leprosy, is it not all the more so that they should not count toward his naziriteship?


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 诪谞讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗


And I have derived only his days of confirmed leprosy. From where do I derive that his days of counting for purification from leprosy are not considered part of his term either? And is this not logical:


诪讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讗祝 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 讜诪讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 住驻专讜


Just as the days of his confirmed leprosy require shaving, so too, the days of his counting require shaving; and just as the days of his confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally of naziriteship, so too, the days of his counting should not count toward his term of naziriteship?


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 讻谉 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讞诇讜讟 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讗诐 诇诪讚转 诇讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


One might have thought that even his days of quarantine as a leper should share the same halakha and not be counted. And it is logical that those days should not count for him either, as the two states are comparable: A confirmed leper renders items ritually impure through lying or sitting, and a leper in the days of his quarantine also renders items impure through lying or sitting. Consequently, if you learned with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy that they do not count as part of his tally, so too, the days of quarantine should not count as part of his tally either.


讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讻谉 讞诇讜讟讜 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讬注诇讜 诇诪谞讬谉


The Gemara rejects this argument: You can say in response: No, if you said this halakha with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy, the reason is that his confirmed state of leprosy requires him to shave after he is healed and to bring an offering before he can commence his naziriteship. Therefore, these days do not count toward his naziriteship. However, will you say the same with regard to the days of his quarantine, which do not require shaving and for which he does not bring an offering? Therefore, perhaps they should count toward his tally.


诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 讜讬诪讬 讙诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗讘诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛住讙专讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛专讬 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜


From here they stated: The days of a leper鈥檚 counting and the days of his confirmed leprosy, when he is a full-fledged leper, do not count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship. However, the days of the impurity of the zav and the zava and the days of a leper鈥檚 quarantine do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讻谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专


With regard to the issue at hand, in any event the baraita teaches: No, if you say that this is true with regard to his days of impurity, which negate the previous days, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous ones? The Gemara analyzes this argument: To what does this statement refer? If we say it is referring to a short naziriteship of thirty days, this cannot be the case, as we require hair growth of thirty days after his purification.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


Rather, is it not the case that it is referring to a lengthy naziriteship, and nevertheless the baraita teaches that they do not count as part of his tally. Apparently, his days as a full-fledged leper do not count toward his term of naziriteship, which contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion should be rejected.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting that impurity. If someone who became impure from one of those sources of impurity enters the Temple, he violates the prohibition against an impure individual entering the sacred space. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is likewise not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 转讛讗 讝讜 拽诇讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓:


Rabbi Meir said: This impurity from a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal. The Torah clearly states that one rendered impure from a creeping animal is prohibited from entering the Temple (see Leviticus 5:2鈥3).


讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讙诪专 诇讛 讜讛讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讙诪专 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇注专讚住拽讬讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 驻转专 专讗砖 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛诇讻讛 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讛讗 讝讜 拽诇讛 诪砖专抓


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Eliezer learn this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya? But didn鈥檛 he learn it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: When I went to a place called Ardaskeya, I found Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petter Rosh sitting and discussing the following halakha before Rabbi Meir: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. Rabbi Meir said to him: This impurity of a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal.


讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谉 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讙诪讬专 诇讛


Rabbi Eliezer continued: I said to Rabbi Meir: Are you at all familiar with Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? He said to me: Yes. I continued: Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel said this to me in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. This concludes the baraita. The Gemara comments: This is proof that Rabbi Eliezer learned this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, not directly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya.


讗诪专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 砖诪注转转讗 讚诪转讗诪专讛 讘讘讬 转诇转讗 拽讚诪讗讬 讜讘转专讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬注讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉


They said: Learn from this case the following principle: With regard to any statement of halakha that was stated as a tradition of three scholars, we say the first and the last names in the chain but we do not say the middle one. Therefore, the mishna mentions the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the last link in the tradition, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, the first scholar, but it omits that of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, the middle scholar in the chain.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞讞讜诐 讛诇讘诇专 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 砖拽讬讘诇 诪讗讘讗 砖拽讘诇 诪谉 讛讝讜讙讜转 砖拽讘诇讜 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讘讝讜专注 砖讘转 讜讞专讚诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖谞讜转谉 驻讗讛 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We, too, learn in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 2:6): Na岣m the Scribe [lavlar] said: This is the tradition that I received from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from father, who received it from the pairs of Sages who served during the period of the Second Temple, who received it from the Prophets: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to one who sows the plants of dill and mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves a corner to the poor for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.


讜讗讬诇讜 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇讘 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And yet Na岣m the Scribe does not mention the names of Joshua and Caleb, despite the fact that they were the Elders who passed down this halakha from Moses to the Prophets. Learn from this that the middle links in a tradition are not necessarily listed.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 讗诐 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘讗讛诇 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪讙注讜 讜注诇 诪砖讗讜 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘讗讛诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪讙注讛 讜注诇 诪砖讗讛


MISHNA: The mishna continues to address the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. Rabbi Akiva said: I discussed this matter before Rabbi Eliezer and suggested the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a bone that is a barley-grainbulk, which does not render a person impure in a tent, a nazirite must nevertheless shave for touching it or carrying it, then in the case of a quarter-log of blood, which is more stringent in that it renders a person impure in a tent, is it not logical that a nazirite should shave for touching it or carrying it?


讗诪专 诇讬 诪讛 讝讛 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻讗谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛:


Rabbi Eliezer said to me: What is this, Akiva? One cannot argue by means of an a fortiori inference here, in this particular case. However, Rabbi Eliezer did not provide a reason for this response. Rabbi Akiva continued: And when I came and presented these matters before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well, i.e., your logic is flawless, but they indeed said that this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which cannot be refuted by means of an a fortiori inference.


  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 prohibitions of the Nazir. Each one has an aspect that is more...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 56: Links in the Chain

More on the counting of the nazir and R. Hisda's ruling. Plus, the impurity from a dead body - that...

Nazir 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 56

讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖砖讬诐 讬讜诐


he eats sacrificial food after sixty days, when the status of uncertain leprosy has passed, and when he has completed all his obligations of naziriteship. He cannot shave for his leprosy right away, as he might be a pure nazirite, and the status of uncertain leprosy does not override naziriteship. Instead, after thirty days he shaves for his uncertain status as a confirmed leper and for his uncertain status as a pure nazirite. Once again, he is not permitted to shave a second time seven days later for the shaving done by a leper as part of his purification process in case he was not a leper but impure. Were that the case, it would mean that the previous shaving was for his impurity, and therefore he would be required to observe naziriteship in purity for thirty days. At the conclusion of this period, i.e., the sixtieth day, he shaves and may eat sacrificial food on the following day, as even if he was a full-fledged leper he has now shaved twice.


讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讬讜诐


And he drinks wine and may become impure to bury a corpse after 120 days. In other words, this individual has not yet completed his naziriteship vow, as he might have been a confirmed leper, in which case both his acts of shaving would have counted for his leprosy. He therefore waits another thirty days and proceeds to shave on day ninety. Even at that stage, he may not yet drink wine or contract ritual impurity from a corpse, as he might have been impure, which would mean that his third shaving was for his impurity. Consequently, he counts another period of thirty days for his naziriteship of purity, at the end of which he may perform the shaving of purity, drink wine, and become impure from a corpse, 120 days from the start of his naziriteship.


讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讗讘诇 讘谞讝讬专讜转 讘转 砖谞讛 讗讜讻诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐


And it is taught in the Tosefta (6:1) with regard to that mishna: In what case is this statement said? With regard to a short naziriteship of thirty days. However, with regard to a naziriteship of a year, he eats sacrificial food after two years. He cannot shave until a year has passed, in case he is not a leper, and he may shave the second time only after a second year, in case he was ritually impure, and this was his naziriteship observed in purity. After two years, he may eat sacrificial meat, for if he was a full-fledged leper he has shaved twice.


讜砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转讬诐 诇讗讞专 讗专讘注 砖谞讬诐


However, if the first two shavings were for his leprosy, he has not shaved for his naziriteship at all, and therefore he must observe an additional year, shave, and observe another year of naziriteship, as perhaps his third shaving was for impurity and the other for his naziriteship in purity. And consequently, he may drink wine and become impure to bury a corpse after four years.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讬 转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐


And if it enters your mind that the days during which he was ritually impure count toward his naziriteship, it should be enough for him to observe three years and thirty days. Due to uncertainty, he cannot shave for his leprosy until a year has passed, in case he was a pure nazirite, and he must wait another year for his second shaving, as he might have been an impure nazirite. However, at that point, if the days of his counting are considered part of his naziriteship, as claimed by Rav 岣sda, he should be allowed to wait a mere thirty days for hair growth, shave for his impure naziriteship, and then add a final year for his naziriteship in purity. The fact that he is obligated to wait four years proves that his time as a leper does not count toward his naziriteship.


讜注讜讚 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪谞讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讜讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 诪讙诇讞 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪讛 讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


And Rav Ashi raised a further objection from the following halakhic midrash: I have derived only that the days of impurity do not count as part of his tally of his naziriteship. From where do I derive that the days of his status as a confirmed leper also do not count toward his naziriteship? And is this not logical: After the days of impurity he shaves and brings an offering, and after his days of confirmed leprosy he likewise shaves and brings an offering; just as his days of impurity do not count as part of his tally, so too, the days of confirmed leprosy should not count as part of his tally.


诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗转讜 砖讻谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬诐 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉


The Gemara rejects this argument: No, if you say that this is true with regard to his days of impurity, which negate the previous days, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous ones, as stated in the mishna?


讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 谞讝讬专 讘拽讘专 砖砖注专讜 专讗讜讬 诇转讙诇讞转 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 砖注专讜 专讗讜讬 诇转讙诇讞转 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


The Gemara suggests another proof. You can say it is an a fortiori inference: And if a nazirite who uttered his vow when he was in a ritually impure place, e.g., a place of a grave, whose hair is fit for the shaving of naziriteship, and yet those days when he was impure do not count as part of his tally, then with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, when his hair is not fit for the shaving of naziriteship, as he must first perform the shaving of leprosy, is it not all the more so that they should not count toward his naziriteship?


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 诪谞讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗


And I have derived only his days of confirmed leprosy. From where do I derive that his days of counting for purification from leprosy are not considered part of his term either? And is this not logical:


诪讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讗祝 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 讜诪讛 讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 住驻专讜


Just as the days of his confirmed leprosy require shaving, so too, the days of his counting require shaving; and just as the days of his confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally of naziriteship, so too, the days of his counting should not count toward his term of naziriteship?


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 讻谉 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讞诇讜讟 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讜讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讗诐 诇诪讚转 诇讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉


One might have thought that even his days of quarantine as a leper should share the same halakha and not be counted. And it is logical that those days should not count for him either, as the two states are comparable: A confirmed leper renders items ritually impure through lying or sitting, and a leper in the days of his quarantine also renders items impure through lying or sitting. Consequently, if you learned with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy that they do not count as part of his tally, so too, the days of quarantine should not count as part of his tally either.


讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 砖讻谉 讞诇讜讟讜 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讛住讙专讜 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 转讙诇讞转 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讬注诇讜 诇诪谞讬谉


The Gemara rejects this argument: You can say in response: No, if you said this halakha with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy, the reason is that his confirmed state of leprosy requires him to shave after he is healed and to bring an offering before he can commence his naziriteship. Therefore, these days do not count toward his naziriteship. However, will you say the same with regard to the days of his quarantine, which do not require shaving and for which he does not bring an offering? Therefore, perhaps they should count toward his tally.


诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讬诪讬 住驻专讜 讜讬诪讬 讙诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗讘诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讘 讜讛讝讘讛 讜讛住讙专讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛专讬 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜


From here they stated: The days of a leper鈥檚 counting and the days of his confirmed leprosy, when he is a full-fledged leper, do not count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship. However, the days of the impurity of the zav and the zava and the days of a leper鈥檚 quarantine do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讬诪讬 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讻谉 诪讘讟诇 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讜讚诪讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讬诪讬 讞诇讜讟讜 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪讜注讟转 讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讙讬讚讜诇 砖注专


With regard to the issue at hand, in any event the baraita teaches: No, if you say that this is true with regard to his days of impurity, which negate the previous days, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous ones? The Gemara analyzes this argument: To what does this statement refer? If we say it is referring to a short naziriteship of thirty days, this cannot be the case, as we require hair growth of thirty days after his purification.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讝讬专讜转 诪专讜讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 住诇拽讬谉 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


Rather, is it not the case that it is referring to a lengthy naziriteship, and nevertheless the baraita teaches that they do not count as part of his tally. Apparently, his days as a full-fledged leper do not count toward his term of naziriteship, which contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion should be rejected.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting that impurity. If someone who became impure from one of those sources of impurity enters the Temple, he violates the prohibition against an impure individual entering the sacred space. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is likewise not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 转讛讗 讝讜 拽诇讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓:


Rabbi Meir said: This impurity from a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal. The Torah clearly states that one rendered impure from a creeping animal is prohibited from entering the Temple (see Leviticus 5:2鈥3).


讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讙诪专 诇讛 讜讛讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讙诪专 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻砖讛诇讻转讬 诇注专讚住拽讬讗 诪爪讗转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 驻转专 专讗砖 砖讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讜讚谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛诇讻讛 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讛讗 讝讜 拽诇讛 诪砖专抓


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Eliezer learn this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya? But didn鈥檛 he learn it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: When I went to a place called Ardaskeya, I found Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petter Rosh sitting and discussing the following halakha before Rabbi Meir: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. Rabbi Meir said to him: This impurity of a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal.


讗诪专转讬 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讗转讛 讘拽讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谉 讻讱 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜讻诇 讟讜诪讗讛 诪谉 讛诪转 砖讗讬谉 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘专 诪诪诇 讙诪讬专 诇讛


Rabbi Eliezer continued: I said to Rabbi Meir: Are you at all familiar with Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? He said to me: Yes. I continued: Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel said this to me in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. This concludes the baraita. The Gemara comments: This is proof that Rabbi Eliezer learned this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, not directly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya.


讗诪专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 砖诪注转转讗 讚诪转讗诪专讛 讘讘讬 转诇转讗 拽讚诪讗讬 讜讘转专讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讬注讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉


They said: Learn from this case the following principle: With regard to any statement of halakha that was stated as a tradition of three scholars, we say the first and the last names in the chain but we do not say the middle one. Therefore, the mishna mentions the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the last link in the tradition, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, the first scholar, but it omits that of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, the middle scholar in the chain.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞讞讜诐 讛诇讘诇专 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪专讘讬 诪讬讗砖讗 砖拽讬讘诇 诪讗讘讗 砖拽讘诇 诪谉 讛讝讜讙讜转 砖拽讘诇讜 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讘讝讜专注 砖讘转 讜讞专讚诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 砖谞讜转谉 驻讗讛 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We, too, learn in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 2:6): Na岣m the Scribe [lavlar] said: This is the tradition that I received from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from father, who received it from the pairs of Sages who served during the period of the Second Temple, who received it from the Prophets: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to one who sows the plants of dill and mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves a corner to the poor for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.


讜讗讬诇讜 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇讘 诇讗 拽讞砖讬讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And yet Na岣m the Scribe does not mention the names of Joshua and Caleb, despite the fact that they were the Elders who passed down this halakha from Moses to the Prophets. Learn from this that the middle links in a tradition are not necessarily listed.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛 讗诐 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘讗讛诇 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪讙注讜 讜注诇 诪砖讗讜 专讘讬注讬转 讚诐 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讗讚诐 讘讗讛诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 诪讙注讛 讜注诇 诪砖讗讛


MISHNA: The mishna continues to address the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. Rabbi Akiva said: I discussed this matter before Rabbi Eliezer and suggested the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a bone that is a barley-grainbulk, which does not render a person impure in a tent, a nazirite must nevertheless shave for touching it or carrying it, then in the case of a quarter-log of blood, which is more stringent in that it renders a person impure in a tent, is it not logical that a nazirite should shave for touching it or carrying it?


讗诪专 诇讬 诪讛 讝讛 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻讗谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讬驻讛 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛:


Rabbi Eliezer said to me: What is this, Akiva? One cannot argue by means of an a fortiori inference here, in this particular case. However, Rabbi Eliezer did not provide a reason for this response. Rabbi Akiva continued: And when I came and presented these matters before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well, i.e., your logic is flawless, but they indeed said that this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which cannot be refuted by means of an a fortiori inference.


Scroll To Top