Nazir 53b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna below [54a], which is the conclusion of our Mishna: “But the sekakhot, and so forth, and a tent, and a quarter-kav of bones [a tent over a quarter-kav of bones], and so forth—for these the nazirite does not shave, and so forth, and he does not overturn the earlier [count] but begins counting immediately [after he completes the days of his impurity; but the days of his impurity do not count for him].”

And on this page we inquire into it: Since we learned in our Mishna that he shaves only for half a kav of bones, then we will automatically know that for less than this the nazirite does not shave. If so, why did the tanna repeat at the conclusion that he does not shave for a tent over a quarter-kav of bones!?

And we answer: If it were only because of the first clause, I would say: Whether in a tent or through contact and carrying, he shaves only for half a kav of bones, since our Mishna deals with all three, as we learned: “For their contact, for their carrying, and for their tenting.” Therefore it taught in the concluding clause: “And a tent and a quarter-kav of bones”—he does not shave for it, but for their contact and carrying he does shave.

The Gemara infers:

Half a 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—

in the “half-kav of bones” that we learned in our Mishna, and in the “quarter-kav of bones” that we learned in the concluding clause, for whose tenting he does not shave—

bones

that have

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 concluding clause—that he does not shave for a tent over a quarter-kav of bones—only to teach us that for their contact and carrying he does shave? For the fundamental point that we learned in the concluding clause, that he does not shave for their tenting, we already knew from the first clause. If so:

Let it follow—

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

because of the bone the size of a barley grain

that is among them; and we already learned in our Mishna that for it he shaves through contact and carrying. Why, then, did the tanna need to teach in the concluding clause that he shaves for the contact and carrying of a quarter-kav of bones!?

Rather,

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

where he ground them into flour—

[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,” and their impurity is only because of half a kav or a quarter-kav. The following discussion is explained according to the reading of the text.

We learned in the Mishna: For these impurities the nazirite shaves, and so forth:

for a limb from a corpse and for a limb from a living person upon which there is the proper 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 further learned in the Mishna in Ohalot [chapter 2]: “These convey impurity through contact and carrying but do not convey impurity through a tent, and so forth: a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is not the proper amount of flesh, and so forth.”

[And we further learned in the Mishna below, 54a: But sekakhot, and so forth, and a quarter-log of blood, and a tent and a quarter-kav of bones, and so forth—for these the nazirite does not shave.]

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

there is not upon them the proper amount of flesh

and there is not in the limb from the corpse a bone the size of a barley grain, that they 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 became impure through contact and carrying with them?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The impurity of contact and carrying in these limbs upon which there is not the proper amount of flesh is rabbinic impurity. Therefore

the nazirite does not shave for them,

even if he touched them or carried them.

And Resh Lakish said:

The impurity of contact and carrying in these limbs is impurity by Torah law. Therefore

the nazirite shaves for them

if he touched them or carried them.

And 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 the proper amount of flesh

and so forth, for their tenting, their contact, and their carrying,” but it does not teach later in our Mishna: “And for a limb from a corpse and from a living person upon which there is not the proper amount of flesh, for their contact and carrying,” just as it taught concerning “a bone the size of a barley grain”; therefore it is implied:

There is upon them the proper amount of flesh—

They have the appropriate amount of flesh—

yes,

indeed he shaves for their contact and carrying;

but there is not upon them

the proper amount of flesh,

no,

he does not shave even for their contact and carrying.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He shaves, since it did not teach

concerning these

in the concluding clause

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

That is to say: Since it was not taught in the concluding clause, among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave even though he became impure: “And for a limb from a corpse and a limb from a living person upon which there is not the proper amount of flesh—for their contact and carrying,” it is implied that for these the nazirite indeed shaves.

And Rabbi Yohanan could say to you:

Although for these he does not shave, the tanna did not need to teach it in the concluding clause among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave, because:

Wherever

[all the impurities]

is implied by inference

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

does not

again

teach

those impurities

in the concluding clause

to say that he does not shave for them. For we already inferred from the first clause that with these limbs he does not shave for them; therefore the tanna did not repeat and teach them in the concluding clause.

The Gemara raises an objection to this principle of Rabbi Yohanan:

But “

But

half a kav of bones,”

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

already

is

implied

by the first clause:

Half a kav of bones, yes,

indeed the nazirite shaves for its tent, but

a quarter of bones, no,

the nazirite does not shave for its tent—

and

nevertheless it

teaches in the concluding clause: “

And a tent and

a quarter of bones

[a tent over a quarter of bones],” among the impurities for which the nazirite does not shave.

This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that what we learned from the inference of the first clause does not need to be taught in the concluding clause. For if so, why does it teach in the concluding clause that he does not shave for a tent over a quarter of bones? And we answer: In fact, everything that can be inferred from the first clause need not again be taught in the concluding clause. Rather,

there,

with regard to a quarter of bones, the tanna therefore taught it also in the concluding clause, because

if not

for the tanna teaching “and a tent and

a quarter of bones”

among those for which the nazirite does not shave, but I would learn this law only from the inference of the first clause,

I would say:

I would have said:

Even for its contact and its carrying—

of a quarter-kav of bones—

no,

the nazirite does not shave for them.

And

for this reason it was necessary to teach

in the concluding clause: “And a tent and

a quarter of bones,”

for which he does not shave, in order to inform us:

It is specifically for their tenting

that

the nazirite does not shave,

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

But a limb upon which there is not flesh as required, which does not cause [the nazirite] to shave—according to Rabbi Yohanan—even for its contact and carrying, the tanna need not teach it in the latter clause, for we have already learned it from the first clause.

We still raise an objection against the method of Rabbi Yohanan and his rule:

But

a half-log of blood

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

from which you can infer

that one should infer from this:

a half-log of blood

does not

indeed cause him to shave for it, but

a quarter-log of blood

does not

cause the nazirite to 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 its contact and carrying.

It follows that even those for which he does not shave at all—and such are limbs upon which there is no 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 is inferred from the first clause. If so, why did the tanna not also teach in the latter clause limbs upon which there is no flesh, for which he does not shave!?

And we answer:

There

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

to exclude Rabbi Akiva!

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

Here the Gemara returns to explain the fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish concerning a limb upon which there is not flesh as required:

This

limb from a corpse

“upon which there is not flesh as required,” concerning which Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish dispute—

what are the circumstances,

in what limb did they dispute!? For

if there is in it

in the limb from a corpse

a barley-sized bone,

if so,

what is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan

that he does not shave even for its contact and carrying? For with regard to contact and carrying of a barley-sized bone, the nazirite does shave, as is explicit in our Mishna!?

And if there is not in it

in the limb

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

that he shaves for its contact and carrying!?

Resh Lakish could say to you:

Actually, there is not in it

in the limb from a corpse

a barley-sized bone, and even so the Torah included it

the Torah included it:

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

This is the law: 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, etc. And everything that touches upon the open field, whether one slain by the sword or a corpse or a human bone or a grave, shall be impure for seven days,” etc. And according to what is explained in our sugya, this verse speaks of impurity 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 and upon all the vessels and upon the persons who were there [in the tent of the corpse], and upon one who touches a bone or one slain or a corpse or a grave. And the pure man shall sprinkle upon the impure one, etc.” And according to what is explained in our sugya, this verse speaks of impurity through contact.

For it was taught: “

And everything that touches

This touching is through the tent of the corpse—

upon the open field, whether one slain by the sword or a corpse

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

Upon the open field”:

This is one who tents over the surface of the corpse

who is impure, although the corpse did not tent over him and he did not enter the tent where the corpse is. “

One slain”:

This is a limb severed

from a living person, and it has

flesh sufficient

to produce healing “flesh as required,” which imparts impurity even in a tent. “

and it conveys impurity even under the same tent. “

A sword”:

to make known that a sword

is like a corpse,

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 a corpse”:

This is a limb severed from a corpse

and it has flesh sufficient to produce healing, which imparts impurity even in a tent. “

Or a human bone”:

This is a quarter of bones

that come from the majority of the number of a person’s bones or the majority of his structure, which impart impurity even in a tent. “

Or a grave”:

This is a sealed grave,

that is: a grave sealed on all its sides, and there is a handbreadth of height between the grave and the corpse, so that the grave itself imparts impurity to one who tents over it, even if he tents not directly above the corpse, because we consider the grave as though it were filled with impurity.