Nazir 55a — the Talmud in English

Let us say it is like a dispute between tannaim ,

that is, shall we say that the Gemara's uncertainty whether “they decreed upon it because of the soil mass” or “they decreed upon it because of the air” is the subject of a dispute between tannaim:

One who forms an ohel over the dead is impure, but if there is between him and the impurity a board one handbreadth wide standing at a height of one handbreadth, it is considered an ohel to separate between him and the impurity.

For it was taught in a beraita:

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

which are kinds of large chests carried upon 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 declares impure

the one sitting inside it.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda declares pure

the one sitting inside it.

What, is it not

that this is what they disputed:

That

Rabbi holds: Because of the air

they decreed upon the land of the nations, and therefore, although the chest is considered an ohel to separate between the impurity in the ground and the one sitting inside it, nevertheless, the one sitting inside it is impure because he entered the air of the land of the nations.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda holds: Because of the soil mass

they decreed upon the land of the nations, and since the chest separates between the ground and the one sitting inside it, he is therefore not impure.

And we reject this:

No,

not as you explained their dispute—

but rather

everyone—

both Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—hold:

Because of the soil mass

they decreed upon it. And had the chest had the status of an “ohel” to separate between the impurity in the ground and the one sitting inside it, indeed, according to everyone the one sitting inside it would not be impure. Rather, they disputed whether a chest, when it is carried [“thrown”], has the status of an ohel to interpose:

One master—

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—

holds:

A thrown ohel—

that is, an ohel that a person or an animal carries, whose feet touch the ground, as with a chest, a box, or a tower—

is called an ohel,

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

And one master—

Rabbi—

holds:

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

is not called an ohel,

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

And the Gemara supports what was explained regarding Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda's position, that a “thrown ohel,” when it is carried by a person or an animal, is considered an ohel and interposes:

And was it not taught in a beraita

[concedingly]:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

A box full of vessels, and one threw it over the corpse,

it is

impure,

that is, the vessels inside it became impure because they formed an ohel over the corpse; since the box is thrown through the air and is not carried by one whose feet touch the ground, it is not considered an ohel to interpose before the impurity.

And if it was placed

the box upon a person or an animal carrying it, it is

pure,

that is, the vessels inside it are pure. It is thus proven that according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, a carried ohel, when it is placed upon a person or an animal whose feet touch the ground, is considered an ohel; therefore, here too the chest is effective in interposing before the impurity.

And if you wish, say

to reject this, so that Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda did not dispute the uncertainty whether “they decreed upon it because of the soil mass” or “they decreed upon it because of the air”:

Everyone holds: Because of the air,

and we should therefore have declared even one who enters in a chest, a box, or a tower impure:

And one master

—Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: Since it is uncommon

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

the Sages did not decree concerning it,

as we say elsewhere: A matter that is uncommon, the Sages did not decree concerning it.

And one master—

Rabbi—

holds: Even though it is uncommon, the Sages decreed concerning it.

And the Gemara supports this reasoning:

And was it not taught in a beraita

[concedingly]:

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

which is not the way to enter them, is

pure,

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

But one who enters

in a wagon,

which is the usual way to enter it,

and in a ship and in an iskarya

[or who enters a large ship that has an iskarya, that is, a mast ] is

impure.

It necessarily follows that the reason is as explained: according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, he is pure because it is uncommon, and therefore he declares him pure only when he enters a chest, a box, or a tower, in which it is uncommon to enter; but in the other things, in which it is common, he is impure.

And if you wish, say

to explain the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda in another manner:

Everyone decreed upon it because of the soil mass and not because of the air; and a thrown ohel carried by a person or an animal is an ohel according to everyone and separates between the mass and the one sitting inside it, and the reason for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda has been explained; and the explanation of Rabbi's dispute with him is:

Here—

in their dispute, Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, concerning one who enters a chest—in a decree

lest he take out his head and most of his body there

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

dispute.

And the reason for Rabbi, who declares him impure, is that he is concerned lest he take out his head and most of his body

outside the chest and become impure through an ohel—

And the reason for the beraita above—which distinguishes between one sitting in a chest, who is pure [according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda], and one sitting in a wagon or a ship, who is impure—is also this decree: even Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda was lenient only with a chest that is sealed and locked, from which it is not easy to take out one's head and most of one's body; but with a wagon and a ship, from which it is easy to take out one's head and most of one's body, he too agrees that we decree, and he is impure.

And the Gemara supports the interpretation explained concerning Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda's reason, that it is because the ohel separates between him and the mass, and not because it is a matter that is uncommon:

And was it not taught in a beraita

[concedingly]:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: One who enters the land of the nations in a chest, a box, or a tower is pure, until he takes out his head and most of his body there.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda came to explain why in a chest he is pure although in a wagon he is impure, and for this he added and said: “until he takes out his head and most of his body there”; that is, only in a wagon, from which it is easy to take out his head and most of his body there, is he impure because of the decree lest he take out his head and most of his body; but in a chest, from which it is not easy to take out his head and most of his body, we will not declare him impure until he takes out his head and most of his body there, and we do not declare him impure now because of the decree lest he take it out.

If so, this beraita supports that the reason for the purity in a chest is not because it is uncommon, as in the previous rejection, but because the ohel separates between him and the mass and he did not take out his head and most of his body so that he should become impure, in accordance with the final rejection of the Gemara. 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 so on, and he does not overturn the earlier [counting],”

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.

Дни завершения и отсчёта очищения прокажённого не подобны дням ритуальной нечистоты от умершего, которые не засчитываются ему в счёт, поскольку он нечист. Ведь и нечистота прокажённого не отличается в этом отношении от других видов нечистоты: дни, проведённые в состоянии этой нечистоты, засчитываются ему в счёт. А то, что мы учили: «И начинает считать тотчас», но дни завершения и отсчёта очищения не засчитываются ему в счёт, — это лишь следствие самого порядка вещей, поскольку он должен совершить стрижки прокажённого до стрижки очищения.

И поскольку он постригся, ему необходимо отсчитать тридцать дней назирейства, пока его волосы не отрастут. Ведь мы учили выше, на 39а: если он постригся сам или его постригли разбойники, он аннулирует отсчёт тридцати дней, поскольку «рост волос не бывает менее тридцати дней». Получается, что пребывание в назирействе в последние тридцать дней его назирейства, пришедшиеся на дни завершения и отсчёта очищения, не приносит ему пользы, поскольку после стрижки по поводу проказы ему необходимо отсчитать их заново.

Итак: не

сказали

в нашей Мишне, что дни завершения и отсчёта очищения не засчитываются ему в счёт, —

а лишь при коротком назирействе

в тридцать дней

; но при длительном назирействе

они также засчитываются ему, поскольку и дни его отсчёта, и дни завершения его очищения помогают ему завершить отсчёт сверх тридцати дней из числа дней, на которые он принял назирейство: ведь ему достаточно тридцати дней после второй стрижки, чтобы достичь необходимой степени роста волос. Более подробно это будет разъяснено далее в Гемаре.

даже дни отсчёта очищения и дни окончательного подтверждения поражения кожи помогают ему завершить срок сверх тридцати дней из числа дней, на которые он принял обет. Ведь после второго бритья ему достаточно тридцати дней, чтобы волосы отросли до необходимой длины; подробнее это разъясняется далее в Гемаре.

Рав Шарвия полагал, что Рав Хисда сказал следующее: если человек принял на себя назирейство лишь на тридцать дней, то дни завершения и отсчёта очищения не засчитываются ему в счёт; но если он принял назирейство более чем на тридцать дней, то и дни завершения и отсчёта очищения засчитываются ему. Поэтому

возразил Рав Шарвия:

Но ведь мы учили в нашей Мишне: «А в дни его отсчёта и в дни его завершения и так далее»

начинает считать тотчас и не аннулирует в них предшествующий отсчёт,

который он уже отсчитал до того, как был окончательно изолирован.

И

в каком случае

говорит наша Мишна, что он не аннулирует в них предшествующий отсчёт?

Если скажешь, что это касается

того, кто принял на себя

короткое назирейство

на тридцать дней и заболел проказой через день или более после начала назирейства, и именно об этом мы учили, что он не аннулирует уже отсчитанные дни, —

так сказать невозможно, поскольку

требуется [ему]

тридцатидневный

рост волос

после дней завершения и отсчёта очищения, и у него вовсе нет пользы от уже отсчитанных им предшествующих дней; следовательно, его предшествующие дни аннулируются!?