Nazir 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

Can it be said that it is subject to a tannaitic dispute ,

that the Gemara’s uncertainty as to whether “they issued a decree concerning it because of the soil” or “they issued a decree concerning it because of the air” is in fact the subject of a dispute between tanna’im:

One who forms an ohel over a corpse becomes impure. However, if there is between him and the source of impurity a board one handbreadth wide, standing at a height of one handbreadth, it is considered an ohel that interposes between him and the impurity.

As it was taught in a beraita:

“One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, box, or cabinet”,

which are types of large chests carried on an animal and are not intended for a person to sit inside them, and this person sat inside them and entered the land of the nations.

Rabbi deems

the person sitting inside it impure.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems

the person sitting inside it pure.

Is it not the case

that this is the matter over which they disagree:

That

Rabbi holds: They issued the decree because of the air,

and therefore, although the chest is considered an ohel that interposes between the impurity in the ground and the person sitting inside it, nevertheless, the person sitting inside it is impure because he entered the airspace of the land of the nations.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds: They issued the decree because of the soil

of the land of the nations; and since the chest interposes between the ground and the person sitting inside it, he is therefore not impure.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you explained their dispute—

Rather,

everyone—

both Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: They issued the decree because of the soil

of the land of the nations. Had the chest possessed the status of an ohel that interposes between the impurity in the ground and the person sitting inside it, then indeed, according to everyone, the person sitting inside it would not be impure. Rather, they disagree as to whether a chest when it is being carried—“thrown”—has the status of an ohel that interposes:

One master—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda—

holds:

A thrown ohel—

that is, an ohel carried by a person or an animal whose feet touch the ground, such as a chest, box, or cabinet—

has the status of an ohel.

Although it is being carried, since the feet of the one carrying the ohel touch the ground, the person sitting in the chest is pure, since the ohel interposes between him and the impurity.

And the other master—

Rabbi—

holds:

A thrown [carried] ohel, even when it is carried by a person or an animal whose feet touch the ground,

does not have the status of an ohel,

and therefore the person sitting inside it is impure because of the soil.

The Gemara supports what was explained concerning Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: that a “thrown ohel” carried by a person or an animal is considered an ohel and interposes:

And was it not taught

[as a confirmation]:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

A chest full of vessels that was thrown across a corpse,

it is

impure,

that is, the vessels inside it became impure because they formed an ohel over the corpse. Since the chest was thrown through the air and was not carried by one whose feet touch the ground, it is not considered an ohel that interposes before impurity.

But if it was resting

on a person or an animal carrying it, the chest is

pure,

that is, the vessels inside it are pure. It is thus proven that, according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a carried ohel resting on a person or an animal whose feet touch the ground is considered an ohel. Therefore, here too, the chest serves to interpose before impurity.

And if you wish, say

that you should reject this interpretation, so that Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do not disagree over whether “they issued the decree because of the soil” or “they issued the decree because of the air”:

Everyone holds: They issued the decree because of the air,

and we ought therefore to deem even one who enters in a chest, box, or cabinet impure:

And the other master—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: Since it is not common

[not usual] for a person to enter in a chest, box, or cabinet, therefore

the Sages did not issue a decree concerning it,

as we say elsewhere: In a matter that is uncommon, the Sages did not issue a decree.

And the other master—

Rabbi—

holds: Although it is uncommon, the Sages did issue a decree concerning it.

The Gemara supports this reasoning:

And was it not taught

[as a confirmation]:

“One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, box, or cabinet,

which are not normally used for entering, is

pure,

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

But one who enters

in a wagon,

which is customarily used for entering,

or in a ship or in a vessel with a mast

[or one who enters a large ship that has a sikarya, meaning a mast ] is

impure.”

It necessarily follows that the reason is as explained: according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, he is pure because the matter is uncommon. Therefore, he declares him pure only when he enters in a chest, box, or cabinet, which are not commonly used for entering; but with regard to the other things, which are commonly used, he is impure.

And if you wish, say

that Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree in a different manner:

Everyone agrees that they issued the decree because of the soil and not because of the air; and a thrown ohel carried by a person or an animal is, according to everyone, an ohel and interposes between the soil and the person sitting inside it. The reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, has thus been explained; and the explanation of Rabbi’s dispute with him is as follows:

Here—

in their dispute concerning one who enters in a chest—

it is with regard to a decree lest he remove his head and the greater part of his body there

[into the airspace of the land of the nations outside the chest] and form an ohel without an interposition over the ground, that they

disagree.

Rabbi’s reason for deeming him impure is that he is concerned lest he remove his head and the greater part of his body

outside the chest and become impure through forming an ohel—

And the reason for the beraita cited above—which distinguishes between one sitting in a chest, who is pure [in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda], and one sitting in a wagon or ship, who is impure—is also this decree. Even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, was lenient only with regard to a chest that is sealed and locked, from which it is not easy to remove one’s head and the greater part of one’s body. But with regard to a wagon or ship, from which it is easy to remove one’s head and the greater part of one’s body, he too agrees that we issue the decree, and the person is impure.

The Gemara supports the explanation given for the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda—that it is because the ohel interposes between him and the soil, and not because it is an uncommon matter:

And was it not taught

[as a confirmation]:

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, box, or cabinet is pure, until he removes his head and the greater part of his body there.

This implies that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, came to explain why, in a chest, he is pure, while in a wagon he is impure; and for this reason he added and said: “Until he removes his head and the greater part of his body there.” That is, only in a wagon, from which it is easy to remove one’s head and the greater part of one’s body, is he impure because of the decree lest he remove his head and the greater part of his body. But in a chest, from which it is not easy to remove his head and the greater part of his body, we do not render him impure until he actually removes his head and the greater part of his body there; we do not render him impure now because of a decree lest he remove them.

Accordingly, this beraita supports the conclusion that the reason for the purity in a chest is not that the matter is uncommon, as in the previous rejection, but that the ohel interposes between him and the soil, and he has not removed his head and the greater part of his body in a manner that would render him impure, in accordance with the Gemara’s final rejection. We learned in the Mishna: “And during the days of his counting and during the days of his completion, for these the nazirite does not shave, and he does not invalidate his earlier count,”

and he begins and counts

immediately [after he becomes pure, but those days do not count for him]:

Rav Hisda said:

Supplement to the sugya: a. It is uncertain whether the Gemara’s uncertainty concerning the reason for the decree applies only to what they added in the second decree—namely, to issue a decree concerning the airspace—or whether the fundamental uncertainty is also what the reason for the first decree was: whether it was because of corpse impurity or because one must not leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land of Israel, except that initially they issued the decree for this reason only concerning one who touches or carries its soil, and subsequently they added even its airspace; the Meiri here explains it according to the first possibility, but see what was explained concerning this above in the notes to the sugya on page 19b. b. Tosafot raised a difficulty here: in the Gemara in Shabbat there they said, “Initially they issued a decree only concerning its soil, and afterward they issued a decree concerning its airspace,” which indicates that they did issue a decree concerning its airspace, whereas here the Gemara is uncertain about this! They answered that the “airspace” mentioned there refers to forming an ohel over the soil, and does not refer to the airspace of the land of the nations; and, on the basis of the words of the later authorities, their intention can be explained in two ways. The first: Tosafot did not write that the airspace mentioned there refers to forming an ohel over the soil; rather, that is according to the possibility that “they issued the decree because of the soil” [for only according to this possibility was there a difficulty for Tosafot]. But according to the possibility that “they issued the decree because of the air,” the “airspace” mentioned there likewise refers to the airspace of the land of the nations and not to forming an ohel over the soil. The explanation in the main text was presented along these lines, as this explanation is found in Tosafot ha-Rosh and in Tosafot in Gittin 8b [see the beginning of the sugya and the notes there]. The second: the words of Tosafot apply according to both possibilities, even if “they issued the decree because of the air.” According to this possibility, they first issued a decree concerning one who touches or carries the soil, then issued a decree concerning one who forms an ohel over the soil, and then issued a decree concerning the airspace of the land of the nations; see the Mahar"ם Shif on Gittin 8b, who wrote that the language of Tosafot in our sugya implies this, although the language of Tosafot in Gittin does not imply it; and this is likewise how the Zevah Toda understood the words of Tosafot in our sugya; and this is also the straightforward position of Mishne la-Melekh throughout his discussion in chapter 11 of Tum’at Met, halakha 1. c. The Rosh explains the connection between the law of the third and seventh sprinklings and the Gemara’s uncertainty differently from Tosafot: if they issued the decree because of the air, then this is merely an additional stringency, and there is no reason to require third- and seventh-day sprinklings, which apply only in the case of corpse impurity; but if they issued the decree because of the soil, then we render him impure because of corpse impurity, and therefore one who becomes impure through the impurity of the land of the nations requires third- and seventh-day sprinklings. Certainly, the Rosh did not intend to say that it is merely an additional stringency and has no connection to impurity, for this is certainly not so. His intention is that it is not corpse impurity, but an ordinary form of impurity, and therefore third- and seventh-day sprinklings are not required. [Nevertheless, this requires explanation: if so, why do the days of his impurity not count for the nazirite’s tally? We find this law only with regard to corpse impurity and a leper; see the words of the Rosh above, on 19b and 20a]. d. According to Mishne la-Melekh [Tum’at Met 11:1, s.v. od katvu ha-Tosafot], they said that the impurity of the land of the nations does not require third- and seventh-day sprinklings only when one became impure through the airspace of the land of the nations. But if he touched or carried the soil, or even if he formed an ohel over it [which, according to Mishne la-Melekh, is a separate decree, as explained above in section b], he requires third- and seventh-day sprinklings ; [and he derived this from the words of Tosafot, although his words require study; see there] ; and the Zevah Toda likewise understood the words of Tosafot in our sugya. According to him, the Gemara’s question arose because it assumed that if there is impurity from the airspace of the land of the nations, this is included in our Mishna, where we learned: “And he sprinkles on the third and seventh days”; and according to him, when the Gemara answered, “with regard to the other cases,” this refers even to the other forms of impurity within the land of the nations itself ; and see what was brought here in the new collections from the words of the Hazon Ish in several places concerning this matter. e. The explanation of the Gemara’s sugya concerning the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, was presented in the main text according to the second interpretation of Tosafot; but in their first interpretation they explained differently: the “thrown ohel” mentioned in our sugya is a carried ohel, and there is no practical difference whether it stands upon an animal or a person, or whether it is being carried through the air, and the word “resting” mentioned in the beraita, which indicates that it is an ohel, means that it is not being carried, but is at rest. The beraita cited by the Gemara concerning a chest full of vessels was not brought as support, but as a difficulty against what the Gemara had sought to say: that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a thrown ohel is an ohel. For this beraita proves that according to his view it is not considered an ohel. On the basis of this, the Gemara returns to what it had sought to say: that they disagree over whether they issued the decree because of the soil or because of the air. However, the issue does not concern a moving chest, but a stationary chest that is not being carried, and in this case Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declares him pure, as is explained in the beraita. [And if you ask: How can he be pure? Before the chest was set down, it was being carried and he had already become impure through the impurity of the land of the nations! The later authorities explained: the chest stood at the border, and the person walked inside it into the land of the nations, while the chest itself did not move.] f. Tosafot in Hagiga 25a, s.v. ohel, raised a difficulty concerning this interpretation: according to it, the Gemara’s statement at the end of the sugya—that they disagree over whether we issue a decree lest he remove his head and the greater part of his body—cannot be understood. This means that according to everyone he is not impure so long as he remains inside the chest, and Rabbi rendered him impure only because of the decree, while Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declared him pure. But once the Gemara proved from the beraita that even according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a thrown ohel does not have the status of an ohel, the person sitting in the chest should be rendered impure even if we do not issue a decree lest he remove his head and the greater part of his body. See there.