Nazir 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Just as the days of his confirmed status require shaving, so too the days of his counting; and

therefore:

just as the days of his confirmed status do not count toward his nazirite term, so too the days of his counting.

The Tosafot raised the following difficulty: Why do we not derive this law from a nazirite who is in a grave, since during the “days of his counting” as well, his hair is unfit for the shaving of purity, as in the derivation that the Gemara made concerning the days of his confirmed status? See what the Keren Ora wrote there in resolution of this difficulty

The beraita continues:

One might even say that the days of his quarantine are likewise so

—that the days of his quarantine should not count toward his nazirite term—

and

because

logic dictates

that the days of his quarantine should be like the days of his confirmed status:

For a metzora

in confirmed status renders his bedding and seat impure

of his,

and

even during

his days of quarantine he renders

them

bedding and seat impure.

And if so, let us say:

If you derived concerning the days of his confirmed status that they do not count toward his term, then the days of his quarantine likewise do not count toward his term.

You have said: No;

you cannot derive this, because the comparison can be refuted:

If you say this with regard to the days of his confirmed status, since his confirmed status requires shaving and he brings an offering

[namely, two birds for sprinkling and sending away],

therefore they do not count; can you say this with regard to the days of his quarantine, which do not require shaving and for which he does not bring an offering? Therefore, they do count toward his term.

From here they said,

the Sages:

The days of his counting and the days of his confirmed status,

of a metzora,

do not count toward his term.

But the days of a zav and a zava,

which do not require shaving,

and the days of a metzora’s quarantine—these do count toward his term.

The Gemara explains Rav Ashi’s difficulty from this beraita against Rav Hisda, who maintains that they said that the days of his counting and the days of his confirmed status do not count toward his term only because of the shaving of the hair at their conclusion, and specifically when, at the time he became a metzora, only a short period of naziriteship remained for him to count; but if an extensive period of more than thirty days of naziriteship remained for him to count, that excess counts for him even during the days of his confirmed status and counting:

At any rate, it teaches

in the beraita: “

If you say this with regard to the days of impurity”—

which do not count toward his term—“

since during them he cancels the preceding days, can you say this with regard to the days of his confirmed status,” etc.; since he does not cancel the preceding days during them, one might have said that the days of his confirmed status should count toward his term.

since during them he cancels the preceding days, can you say this with regard to the days of his confirmed status,” etc.; since he does not cancel the preceding days during them, one might have said that the days of his confirmed status should count toward his term.

But

with regard to what—at what stage of naziriteship does the beraita say that one might have thought that the days of his confirmed status count toward his term?

At what stage of the nazirite term does the beraita say that one might have thought that the days of his confirmed condition count toward his term?

If you say it concerns a short nazirite term,

meaning that when he was declared a metzora, only a short period of naziriteship remained for him to count, how could one have said—if there were no special derivation—that the days of his confirmed status count toward his term?

For we require hair growth,

and certainly the days of his confirmed status do not count toward his term, as Rav Hisda reasons!?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that

it concerns an extensive nazirite term,

meaning that when he was declared a metzora, a period of naziriteship of more than thirty days remained for him to count; for if we had not derived from logic that the days of his confirmed status do not count toward his term, it would have been possible to count the days exceeding thirty within the days of his confirmed status.

And it teaches

in the beraita that a derivation is needed

that

even in this situation

they do not count for him

the days of his confirmed status

toward the count.

Apparently,

and it follows that even in the case of an extensive nazirite term,

they do not count for him

[the days of his confirmed status do not count toward his term], contrary to Rav Hisda.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Hisda.

One who enters the Temple intentionally while impure is liable to karet, etc.; if he does so unwittingly, he brings an ascending-and-descending offering, etc. One is liable to karet or an offering only from the Israelite Courtyard inward, etc.’”

The general principle is: Anyone whose impurity according to Torah law requires immersion in water is liable to karet for entering the Temple, even after he has immersed, etc. But one who becomes impure through impurities from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, although he has impurity lasting seven days, is exempt for entering the Temple.” [This is the wording of Maimonides, in chapter 3 of the Laws of Entering the Temple, who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua in our Mishna.]

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to every impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite

who becomes impure through it

shaves,

[he performs “impurity shaving”],

one is liable for it

—those who become impure with an impurity of this kind and enter the Temple—

for entering the Temple.

But with regard to every impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable for entering the Temple.

Rabbi Meir

objected:

Rabbi Meir

And

shall

this

impurity

for which a nazirite does not shave

be less severe than

the impurity of

a creeping animal, for which one is liable for entering the Temple!

for which one is liable for entering the Temple!

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to every impurity,” etc. The Gemara wonders:

And

after all,

did Rabbi Eliezer simply learn it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua

—who is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya—

from him [did Rabbi Eliezer learn this law from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya]!?

[did Rabbi Eliezer learn this law from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya]!?

But he learned it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel [was it not Rabbi Yehoshua ben Memel who taught him this law]!?

[was it not Rabbi Yehoshua ben Memel who taught him this law]!?

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer said:

When I went to Ardeskya,

[a place-name],

I found Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petter—

Resh,

[this was his father’s name]—

sitting and expounding halakha before Rabbi Meir;

and he would say to him:

With regard to every impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite shaves—

one is liable for it for entering the Temple, and with regard to every impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave—

one is not liable for it for entering the Temple.

He said to him,

Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petter—Resh:

Shall

this

impurity be less severe than the impurity of a creeping animal,

for which one is liable for entering the Temple!?

Rabbi Eliezer continued and said:

I said to him,

to Rabbi Meir:

Are you at all acquainted with Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel [do you know that he is a great man]?

[do you know that he is a great man]?

He said to me,

Rabbi Meir said:

Yes!

But

this is what he told me

[Rabbi Eliezer]:

Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel:

With regard to every impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite shaves, one is liable for it for entering the Temple; and with regard to every impurity

from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable for it for entering the Temple.

The Gemara concludes its question:

Behold,

we see

that Rabbi Eliezer learned it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel,

and not from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya, as we learned in our Mishna!?

They said,

the members of the academy, in resolution:

Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer learned this law from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, but Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel learned this law from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya.

Conclude from this

from the fact that Rabbi, the compiler of the Mishna, taught: “Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua,” and did not mention the intermediary, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Memel:

Whenever a teaching is transmitted in the study hall of three generations

[that is, one who states a teaching in the name of a rabbi who heard it from a second rabbi who heard it from a third rabbi]:

We mention the earliest and the latest, but we do not mention the intermediary,

there is no concern if only the first and last are mentioned, and the intermediary is not mentioned.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too have learned this [we too learned this principle in the Mishna in tractate Peah]!

[we too learned this principle as a rule in the Mishna of tractate Peah]!

For we learned:

Nahum the Scribe said: This is what I received as a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received

this law

from my father

[from his father],

who received it from the pairs

[Hillel and Shammai; and before them: Shemaya and Avtalion; and before them: Yehuda ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetaḥ; Yehoshua ben Perahya and Nittai the Arbelite; Yosei ben Yoezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan],

who received it from the Prophets

Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and they received it, each man from his teacher,

as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai:

In Pirkei Avot [chapter 1], the chain of the transmission of the Torah is explained: “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the members of the Great Assembly.” The members of the Great Assembly transmitted it to the “pairs,” one of whom was the Nasi and the other the head of the court.

One who sows his field with two varieties of wheat

[such as red and white wheat], if

he makes them one threshing floor,

he

gives one portion of the produce for the poor

for all of it; but if he makes them

two threshing floors,

he

gives two portions of the produce for the poor,

one portion for each variety.

Thus Nahum the Scribe was careful to mention the first—Moses our teacher—and Rabbi Meyasha, who was the last,

whereas

he did not count

Joshua and Caleb,

who were also among the intermediaries, since they received the Torah from Moses;

he did not count them—

and

conclude from this

that there is no concern about omitting the intermediaries.

Mishna: