Nazir 53a — the Talmud in English

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

Mar Ukva said: Here

in our Mishna

we are dealing with a spine and a skull in which there is no quarter-

kab

.

And we challenge this:

But

Rava himself

is the one who said

elsewhere:

It was necessary only for a spine and a skull in which there is no quarter-kab of bones

, so it follows that he too knew this reasoning, that there are a spine and a skull in which there is no quarter-kab!?

And we answer: Rava said it in that place only

after he heard it

[after he had heard

from Mar Ukva

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

Come and hear

from the beraita mentioned above [52b]:

“Beit Shammai say: The quarter-kab of bones that the Sages said renders impure even in a tent—that is, ‘from the bones, or from two or from three’ limbs.

“And Beit Hillel say: A quarter-kab from the body [the corpse], from the majority of the structure or from the majority of the number.”

Shammai says: “

even

one bone from a spine or from a skull”

renders impure in a tent.

And since Shammai required, with regard to impurity, only one bone from a spine, it follows that the Sages who disagree with him suffice, with regard to impurity, with the measure of a quarter-kab of bones that come from the spine, just as with a quarter-kab of bones that come from the majority of the number or the majority of the structure. However, with a quarter-kab that comes from the spine, that measure also suffices with regard to shaving, “for it is not reasonable to say that they disagree to such an extent: that according to the Rabbis half a kab is required [with regard to shaving], whereas according to Shammai one bone suffices.”

And we reject this:

Shammai is different, for he is more stringent

, meaning: Indeed, they disagreed from one extreme to the other, for according to Shammai one bone suffices with regard to shaving, whereas according to the Rabbis he shaves only for half a kab.

The Gemara adds:

Let us resolve from it

in reverse:

The reason for Shammai is that he is more stringent

, and therefore he requires, with regard to shaving, only one bone from a spine and skull;

but according to the Rabbis, not until there is half a kab of bones.

For if you should say that according to the Rabbis a quarter-kab of bones that come from the spine and skull suffices with regard to shaving, and that the law of a spine and skull is more stringent than bones that come from other limbs, which require half a kab, they should have explained their stringency, just as Shammai stated his stringency concerning a spine and skull.

And we reject this:

Perhaps the Rabbis disagreed with Shammai only

with regard to impurity

in one bone

from the spine and skull: according to Shammai it renders impure in a tent, whereas according to the Rabbis it renders impure only with a quarter-kab;

but with a quarter of bones

that render impure in a tent even according to the Rabbis,

even the Rabbis agree

that this measure suffices also for shaving, and half a kab is not required as with other limbs; they simply did not take care to explain their words.

The Gemara brings here a dispute among the tannaim concerning what we have so far taken as obvious: that the measure of bones with regard to impurity is a quarter-kab, and with regard to shaving it is half a kab; and likewise with 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 and half a kab of bones and the measures of a quarter-log and half a log of blood:

Some of them would say:

The measure of

half a kab 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

, meaning: no measure of “a quarter-kab of bones” and “a quarter-log of blood” was stated at all.

And some of them would say: Even a quarter of bones and a quarter-log of blood is for every matter

, meaning: no measure of half a kab and half a log was stated at all, and for every matter its measure is a quarter of bones.

The court after them said:

The measure of

half a kab

of bones and half a log of blood

is

for every

matter, for nothing more than this measure is required anywhere; whereas the measure of

a quarter of bones and a quarter-log of blood

is

to

forbid one who became impure through them from [eating]

teruma and consecrated things, but not

for the nazirite

to shave for this impurity,

and

not for

one who makes the Passover offering

[those possessing a Passover offering].

And we challenge this:

Since

and yet

a third הכרעה does not decide!?

That is, when two people dispute a law that concerns two matters, one says that the law is thus in both matters, and the other says that the law is thus in both matters, and a third comes and distinguishes between the matters, contrary to the first two, who did not distinguish between the matters, this is called “a third הכרעה,” and the halakha does not follow it. And the court after them, which distinguishes between teruma and consecrated things on the one hand and the nazirite and one who makes the Passover offering on the other, unlike the first ones, who did not distinguish between them, is a third הכרעה, which is not followed—

and if so, why do we follow the court after them, as is explained in the Mishna in Oholot [chapter 2] with regard to impurity, that the measure is a quarter-kab and a quarter-log, which refers to teruma and consecrated things, whereas it is explained in our Mishna that the measure for the nazirite’s shaving is half a kab of bones and half a log of blood?

He said

he answered,

Rav Yaakov bar Idi:

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

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

, and therefore we follow them, for the court of the later authorities is worthy of relying upon their tradition and establishing the halakha according to them. We learned in the Mishna: “For these impurities the nazirite shaves, etc., for their contact, their carrying, and their tent, etc.”

For these the nazirite shaves

etc.: and we explain:

“

For these”

[which is at the beginning of the Mishna]—the tanna taught it in order

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

does not cause him to shave “for its contact, its carrying, and its tent,” but:

for its contact and its carrying, he does not

[indeed, he does shave],

but for its tent, he does not

shave.

And "

upon these"

of the latter clause [at the end of the Mishna] comes

to exclude

to exclude the stone of the sakhakhot [the stone protruding from the wall of a cemetery, and these stones are the "protrusions" below, 54b],

which was 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 being under their tent: