Nazir 53b (נג:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna below [54a], which is the conclusion of our Mishna: “But for the sakhakhot, etc., and a tent and a quarter-kav of bones [a tent containing a quarter-kav of bones], etc., for these the nazirite does not shave, etc., and he does not invalidate the preceding days, but begins counting immediately [after he completes the days of his impurity; however, the days of his impurity do not count for him].”

And on this page we raise the following question: Since we learned in our Mishna that he shaves only for half a kav of bones, we will consequently know that for less than this the nazirite does not shave. If so, why did the tanna repeat in the conclusion that he does not shave for a tent containing a quarter-kav of bones?

And we answer: Had I inferred this only from the first clause, I would have said that whether in a tent or through contact and carrying, he shaves only for half a kav of bones. For our Mishna deals with all three forms, as we learned: “For their contact, their carrying, and their tenting.” Therefore, the tanna taught in the conclusion: “And a tent and a quarter-kav of bones,” for which he does not shave, but for their contact and carrying he does shave.

The Gemara infers:

A half-kav of bones, yes—

indeed, the nazirite shaves for it, but

a quarter

of a kav of

bones, no—

the nazirite does not shave for it.

What are the circumstances?

If we say that there are among them

[there are among them]—in the “half-kav of bones” that we learned in our Mishna, and in the “quarter-kav of bones” that we learned in the conclusion, for whose tenting he does not shave—

bones

that contain

the

size of a

barley-grain—

barley grain—

If so, the difficulty is: Is it not the entire purpose of what we learned in the conclusion—that he does not shave for the tenting of a quarter-kav of bones—only to teach that for their contact and carrying he does shave? For the fundamental point that we learned in the conclusion, that he does not shave for their tenting, we already knew from the first clause. If so:

Why not derive it—

with regard to those quarter-kav of bones that contain a bone the size of a barley-grain, he shaves for their contact and carrying

because of the bone the size of a barley-grain

that they contain, and we already learned in our Mishna that he shaves for this through contact and carrying; why, then, did the tanna need to teach in the conclusion that one shaves for the contact and carrying of a quarter-kav of bones?

Rather, here with what are we dealing—in both the first clause and the conclusion? With a case

of

pulverizing them

[he ground the bones finely, like flour or dust], so that they are not included in the impurity of “a bone the size of a barley-grain”; their impurity is solely on account of a half-kav or a quarter-kav. The following discussion is explained according to the reading of the Keren Ora

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

For a limb from a corpse and for a limb from a living person upon which there is an appropriate amount of flesh

[and for half a kav of bones and half a log of blood], for their contact, their carrying, and their tenting.

And we learned further in the Mishna in Ohalot [chapter 2]: “These convey impurity through contact and carrying but do not convey impurity through tenting, etc.: a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is not an appropriate amount of flesh, etc.”

And we learned further in the Mishna below, 54a: “But for the sakhakhot, etc., and a quarter-log of blood, and a tent and a quarter-kav of bones, etc., for these the nazirite does not shave.”

And the Gemara discusses the law of a limb from a living person or from a corpse when

there is not an appropriate amount of flesh upon them

and the limb from the corpse does not contain a bone the size of a barley-grain, which convey impurity through contact and carrying, as explained in the Mishna in Ohalot:

what

is the law of the nazirite with regard to shaving when he becomes impure through contact with or carrying them?

Rabbi Yohanan said: The impurity of contact and carrying in the case of these limbs, upon which there is not an appropriate amount of flesh, is rabbinic impurity, and therefore

the nazirite does not shave for them

, even if he touched them or carried them

.

And Reish Lakish said:

The impurity of contact and carrying in the case of these limbs is impurity by Torah law, and therefore

the nazirite shaves for them

if he touched them or carried them.

The Gemara explains the source of their dispute:

Rabbi Yohanan said: The nazirite does not shave for them,

because

the first clause teaches

[in our Mishna]: “

For a limb from a corpse and for a limb from a living person upon which there is an appropriate amount of flesh

etc., for their tenting, their contact, and their carrying.” But our Mishna does not continue: “And for a limb from a corpse and from a living person upon which there is not an appropriate amount of flesh, for their contact and their carrying,” just as it taught concerning a bone the size of a barley-grain; this implies:

There is an appropriate amount of flesh upon them—

They have the appropriate amount of flesh—

yes,

indeed he shaves for their contact and carrying;

but there is not upon them

an appropriate amount of flesh—

no,

he does not shave even for their contact and carrying.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He shaves, since it was not taught

for these

in the conclusion

[in the following Mishna] that he does not shave for their contact and carrying.

That is, since the conclusion did not list among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave even when he becomes impure: “And for a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is not an appropriate amount of flesh—for their contact and carrying,” it follows that for these the nazirite indeed shaves.

And Rabbi Yohanan could have said to you: Although for these he does not shave, the tanna did not need to list them in the conclusion among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave, because:

Whenever

[all impurities]

is implied by inference

from the first clause that he does not shave for them, he

did not

repeat and

teach

concerning those impurities

in the conclusion

that

he does not shave for them. For we have already inferred from the first clause that in the case of these limbs he does not shave for them, and therefore the tanna did not repeat them in the conclusion.

The Gemara challenges this generalization of Rabbi Yohanan:

But the “

But

half-kav of bones”

that we learned in our Mishna among those for which the nazirite shaves

is

already

implied

by the first clause:

A half-kav of bones, yes

indeed the nazirite shaves for its tenting, but

a quarter-kav of bones, no,

the nazirite does not shave for its tenting—

and

nevertheless

it is taught in the conclusion: “

And a tent

of a quarter-kav of bones

[a tent containing a quarter-kav of bones]” among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave.

This presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yohanan, who maintains that anything we learn from an inference from the first clause need not be repeated in the conclusion. If so, why is it taught in the conclusion that he does not shave for the tenting of a quarter-kav of bones? And we answer: In general, anything that can be inferred from the first clause need not be repeated in the conclusion. However,

there—with regard to a quarter-kav of bones—the tanna therefore taught it also in the conclusion, because

if not

the tanna had taught “and a tent and

a

quarter-kav of bones” among those for which the nazirite does not shave, but rather I learned this law only from an inference from the first clause,

I would have said

[I would have thought]:

I would have said:

Even for its contact and carrying—

of a quarter-kav of bones—

no,

the nazirite does not shave for them.

And

And for this reason it was necessary to teach

in the conclusion, “And a tent and

a quarter-kav of bones,”

for which he does not shave, in order to teach us that

it is specifically for their tenting

that

the nazirite does not shave,

but for the contact and carrying of a quarter-kav of bones—even when they do not contain a bone the size of a barley-grain, as in a case where they were ground like flour—he does shave.

But in the case of a limb that does not have flesh sufficient for it, for which he does not shave—according to Rabbi Yohanan—even for contact with it or carrying it, the tanna need not teach this in the latter clause, since we have already learned it from the first clause.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to challenge the method and principle of Rabbi Yohanan:

But "

half a log of blood"

which we learned in the first clause, for which he shaves,

from which you can infer [that this should be precisely inferred]: "

that one should infer from this:

half a log of blood"

yes,

he indeed shaves for it, but "

a quarter-log of blood"

no,

the nazirite does not shave for it—

And

nevertheless

it teaches

also

in the latter clause "

a quarter-log of blood"

for which the nazirite does not shave at all, even for contact with it or carrying it.

It follows that even in the case of items for which he does not shave at all—and this is analogous to limbs that do not have sufficient flesh, according to Rabbi Yohanan—the tanna returned and taught in the latter clause that he does not shave for it at all, even though this can be inferred from the first clause. If so, why did the tanna not also teach in the latter clause the case of limbs that do not have sufficient flesh, for which he does not shave

!?

There,

with regard to a quarter-log of blood, the reason the tanna returned and taught this impurity in the latter clause, informing us that he does not shave for it, was

to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva!

For Rabbi Akiva says [in the Mishna at the end of the chapter]: For a quarter-log of blood, a nazirite shaves for it, for contact with it and for carrying it, by means of a kal va-chomer from a barley-sized bone, for which he shaves for contact with it and for carrying it.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the substance of the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning a limb that does not have sufficient flesh:

This "

limb from a corpse

that does not have sufficient flesh,” concerning which Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree—

what are the circumstances?

With regard to which limb do they disagree!? For

if it has

in the limb from the corpse

a barley-sized bone,

then

what is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan,

who says that he does not shave even for contact with it or carrying it? Surely a nazirite shaves for contact with and carrying a barley-sized bone, as is explicit in our Mishna

!? And if it does not have

in the limb

a barley-sized bone, what is the reason of Reish Lakish,

who says that he shaves for contact with it and carrying it!?

Reish Lakish could have said to you:

Actually, it does not have

in the limb from the corpse

a barley-sized bone, and even so, the Torah included it [the Torah included it as subject to impurity]:

the Torah included it:

The passage concerning impurity imparted by a corpse [Numbers 19]: “

This is the Torah: When a person dies in a tent, anyone who enters the tent and everything that is in the tent shall be impure for seven days, and so on. And everything that touches, in the open field, one slain by the sword or one who died naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be impure for seven days,” and so on. According to what is explained in our sugya, this verse speaks of impurity imparted through a tent. “

And a pure man shall take hyssop and dip it in water [in the water of purification], and sprinkle it upon the tent, upon all the vessels, and upon the persons who were there [in the tent containing the corpse], and upon one who touched a bone, one slain, one who died naturally, or a grave. And the pure person shall sprinkle upon the impure person, and so on.” According to what is explained in our sugya, this verse speaks of impurity through contact.

As it was taught: “

And everything that touches”—

this contact is through the tent containing the corpse—

in the open field, one slain by the sword or one who died naturally

or a human bone or a grave shall be impure for seven days.” What does this teach us? “

In the open field”:

This is one who forms a tent over the surface of the corpse,

who is impure, even though the corpse did not form a tent over him and he did not enter the tent in which the corpse lies. “

One slain”:

This is a limb severed

from a living person that has

sufficient flesh to

bring healing [“

sufficient flesh”], and it conveys impurity even through a tent. “

Sword”:

to teach us that a sword

is like a slain person—that is, a metal utensil, analogous to a sword, that touches a corpse becomes a primary source of the most severe impurity, like the corpse itself, and conveys seven-day impurity even through a tent. “

that is: a metal vessel—analogous to a sword—which touches a corpse becomes a primary source of impurity, like the corpse itself, and imparts impurity even in a tent, the impurity of seven days. “

Or one who died naturally”:

This is a limb severed from a corpse

that has sufficient flesh to bring healing, and it conveys impurity even through a tent. “

Or a human bone”:

This is a quarter-kav of bones

that come from the majority of the bones or from the majority of the structure of a person, which convey impurity even through a tent. “

Or a grave”:

This is a closed grave,

that is, a grave closed on all sides, with a handbreadth of height between the grave and the corpse. The grave itself conveys impurity to one who forms a tent over it, even if he forms a tent over a part not directly above the corpse, because we regard the grave as though it were filled with impurity.