Nazir 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

The version of the Gemara and its explanation follows the first interpretation of the Tosafot.

Mar Ukva said: Here

in our Mishna

we are dealing with a spinal column and a skull that do not contain a quarter

of a kav

[of bones].

And we challenge this:

But

Rava himself

is the one who said

elsewhere:

It was necessary only with regard to a spinal column and a skull that do not contain a quarter of a kav of bones.

This indicates that he, too, knew this premise—that there are a spinal column and a skull that do not contain a quarter of a kav of bones—is that not so!?

And we answer: Rava said this in that other place only

after he had heard it

[after he heard it]

from Mar Ukva,

to explain our Mishna in this manner, and he explained it elsewhere accordingly.

Come and hear

from the beraita mentioned above [52b]: "

Beit Shammai say: The quarter-kav of bones that the Sages said renders one impure even in a tent means: 'from bones, or from two or from three' limbs. "

And Beit Hillel say: A quarter [of a kav] from the body, from the majority of the structure or from the majority of the number."

Shammai says: "

Even

one bone from a spinal column or from a skull"

renders one impure in a tent.

Since Shammai required, with regard to impurity, only one bone from a spinal column, it follows that the Sages who dispute him require, with regard to impurity, only the measure of a quarter of a kav of bones that come from a spinal column, just as a quarter-kav of bones that come from the majority of the number or the majority of the structure. However, with regard to shaving as well, a quarter-kav that comes from the spinal column is sufficient, "for there is no reason to say that they dispute to such an extent that, according to the Sages, half a kav is required [for shaving], while according to Shammai one bone is sufficient."

And we reject this:

Shammai is different, for he is far more stringent—that is, they indeed disputed from one extreme to the other: according to Shammai, one bone is sufficient even for shaving, while according to the Sages one shaves only for half a kav.

That is, they indeed disagreed completely: according to Shammai, one bone is sufficient even for shaving, while according to the Sages one shaves only for a half-kav.

The Gemara adds:

Let us resolve from this

in the reverse direction:

The reason for Shammai's ruling is that he is stringent,

and therefore he requires, for shaving, only one bone from a spinal column or skull;

but according to the Sages, [one does not shave] until there is half a kav of bones.

For if you were to say that, according to the Sages, a quarter-kav of bones that come from a spinal column and skull suffices for shaving, and that the law of a spinal column and skull is more stringent than that of bones coming from other limbs, which require half a kav, they should have stated their stringency, just as Shammai stated his stringency with regard to a spinal column and skull.

And we reject this:

Perhaps the Sages disputed Shammai only

with regard to impurity,

concerning one bone

from a spinal column or skull: according to Shammai it renders one impure in a tent, whereas according to the Sages it renders one impure only at a quarter-kav;

but with regard to a quarter of bones,

which renders one impure in a tent even according to the Sages,

even the Sages agree

that this measure suffices for shaving as well, and half a kav is not required as it is for other limbs. They simply did not take care to state this explicitly.

The Gemara now cites a dispute among tannaim concerning what we have so far taken as obvious: that the measure of bones for impurity is a quarter-kav, while for shaving it is half a kav; and likewise, for blood the measure is a quarter-log of blood for impurity, and half a log of blood for shaving.

Rabbi Eliezer said: The early elders

disputed the measures of a quarter-kav and half a kav of bones, and the measures of a quarter-log and half a log of blood:

Some of them said:

The measure of

half a kav of bones and half a log of blood

is

for every

matter, whereas the measure of

a quarter of bones and a quarter-log of blood is not for every matter—that is, the measures of "a quarter-kav of bones" and "a quarter-log of blood" were not stated at all.

that is, no measure of "a quarter-kav of bones" or "a quarter-log of blood" was stated at all.

And some of them said: A quarter of bones and a quarter-log of blood are also for every matter

—that is, the measures of half a kav and half a log were not stated at all; in every matter the measure is a quarter of bones.

The court after them said:

The measure of

half a kav

of bones and half a log of blood

is

for every matter,

for no greater measure is ever required; whereas the measure of

a quarter of bones and a quarter-log of blood

is

for

prohibiting one who became impure through them from [eating]

Teruma and consecrated offerings, but not

for a nazir

to shave for this impurity,

and

not for

one who performs the Paschal offering

[those who bring the Paschal offering].

And we challenge this:

Since

after all,

a third הכרעה cannot be decisive!?

That is, when two authorities dispute a law involving two matters, one saying that the law is the same in both matters and the other likewise saying that the law is the same in both, and a third authority comes and distinguishes between the matters, contrary to the first two, who did not distinguish between them, this is called "a third הכרעה," and the halakha does not follow it. The court after them, which distinguishes between Teruma and consecrated offerings on the one hand and the nazir and one who performs the Paschal offering on the other, unlike the earlier authorities who did not distinguish between them, has issued a third הכרעה, which should not be followed—

If so, why do we rule according to the court after them? This is as stated in the Mishna in Oholot [chapter 2] with regard to impurity: the measure is a quarter-kav and a quarter-log, meaning with regard to Teruma and consecrated offerings; while our Mishna states that the measure for a nazir to shave is half a kav of bones and half a log of blood.

He said

and answered,

Rav Yaakov bar Idi:

The court after them did not state this on their own authority, but

said it on the basis of tradition, from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Therefore, we rule according to them, for the later court is worthy of relying on its received tradition and establishing the halakha according to it. We learned in the Mishna: "For these impurities the nazir shaves, etc., for their contact, their carrying, and their tent, etc."

For these the nazir shaves

etc. And we explain:

"For these"

at the beginning

[at the beginning of the Mishna]. The tanna taught this in order

to exclude a bone the size of a barley grain, which

does not cause him to shave "for their contact, their carrying, and their tent," but:

for its contact and its carrying, he does not

[indeed, he does shave],

but for its tent he does not

shave.

And"

"concerning these"

in the latter part [at the end of the Mishna] comes

to exclude

the stone of the covering stones [a stone projecting from the wall of a cemetery, and these stones are the "periot" mentioned below, on 54b, and explained there],

for which he does not shave .

We learned in the Mishna: For these impurities the nazir shaves, etc.

and half a kav of bones

etc., for touching them, carrying them, and their tenting: