Nazir 56b — the Talmud in English

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

therefore:

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

The beraita continues:

One might have thought that the days of his quarantine are also the same,

so that the days of his quarantine would not count toward his nazirite term.

And

because

the principle of the law

would dictate that the days of his quarantine should be like the days of his confirmed condition:

For a leper

with a confirmed condition renders his bedding and seat impure

,

and

also during

his days of quarantine he renders

his

bedding and seat impure.

If so, one might say:

If you have learned that the days of his confirmed condition do not count toward his nazirite term, then the days of his quarantine likewise do not count toward his nazirite term.

You can say: No.

You cannot learn this, because the following distinction can be raised:

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

namely, two birds, one for sprinkling and one for sending away,

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

From here the Sages said:

The

days of his counting and the days of his final purification

of a leper

do not count toward his nazirite term.

But the days of a man with a discharge or a woman with a discharge,

which do not require shaving,

and the days of a leper’s quarantine: these count toward his nazirite term.

The Gemara explains Rav Ashi’s difficulty from this beraita against the view of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the statement that the days of a leper’s counting and final purification do not count toward his nazirite term applies only because of the shaving at their conclusion, and only when, at the time he became a leper, he had only a short period of naziriteship left to count. But if he had a long period of naziriteship left—more than thirty days—then that excess period counts even during his days of confirmed condition and counting:

In any event, it teaches

the beraita:

“You cannot say this with regard to the days of impurity”—

which do not count toward his term—

“because during them he cancels the days counted previously; can you say the same with regard to the days of his confirmed condition,” and so on. Since during the days of his confirmed condition he does not cancel the days counted previously, one might have said that these days should count toward his term.

и так далее», поскольку в них он не аннулирует предшествующие; следовательно, можно было бы сказать, что дни его окончательного поражения засчитываются ему в счёт.

But

with regard to what?

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 is referring to a short nazirite term,

meaning that when he was declared to have a confirmed condition he had only a short period of naziriteship left to count, then how could one have said—if there were no special derivation to teach otherwise—that the days of his confirmed condition count toward his term?

After all, the growth of hair is required,

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

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that

it is referring to a long nazirite term,

meaning that when he was declared to have a confirmed condition he had a nazirite term of more than thirty days left to count? If we did not derive from the law that the days of his confirmed condition do not count toward his term, it would have been possible to count the days beyond thirty during his days of confirmed condition.

And it teaches

in the beraita that a derivation is necessary to establish

that

even in this case

they do not count toward his term,

the days of his confirmed condition

toward the count.

It follows

that even in the case of a long nazirite term,

they do not count for him

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

And we conclude:

Learn from this

that the ruling is not in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

A person who enters the Temple intentionally while impure is liable for karet, and one who does so unintentionally brings an adjustable offering, and one is liable for karet or an offering only from the Israelite courtyard inward, and so on.”

The general rule is: Anyone whose impurity requires immersion in water by Torah law is liable for karet for entering the Temple, even after immersing, and so on. But one who becomes impure through one of the corpse impurities for which a nazirite does not shave, even though he has impurity lasting seven days, is exempt for entering the Temple. [These are the words 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 corpse impurity for which a nazirite

becoming impure through it

shaves,

[that is, he performs a “shaving for impurity,”]

one is liable for it

—a person who becomes impure with an impurity of this type and enters the Temple—

for entering the Temple.

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

Rabbi Meir

objected:

Rabbi Meir

:

this

impurity,

which

is one for which a nazirite does not shave,

cannot be less severe than

the impurity of

a creeping creature,

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, and so on. The Gemara is surprised:

And

does

Rabbi Eliezer, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua,

meaning, ordinarily Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya,

learn it

[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]!?

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

When I went to Ardeskya

[a place name],

I found Rabbi Yehoshua ben Pater—

—

[this was his father’s name]—

who was sitting and discussing halakha before Rabbi Meir;

and he said to him:

With regard to every corpse impurity for which a nazirite shaves,

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

one is not liable for it because of entering the Temple.

Rabbi Meir said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Pater—the son of:

This

impurity

cannot be less severe than the impurity of a creeping creature,

for which one is liable for entering the Temple!

Rabbi Eliezer continued and said:

I said to him,

to Rabbi Meir:

Are you acquainted with Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel

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

He said to me,

Rabbi Meir

replied: Yes!

But

Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel

[said to Rabbi Eliezer]

said this to me:

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

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

The Gemara concludes its question:

Here

[we see] that

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

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

They said,

the members of the academy, to resolve the difficulty:

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

Learn from this

from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who arranged 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 name of three people

[when someone reports a teaching in the name of one Sage who heard it from a second Sage who heard it from a third]:

We mention the first and the last, but we do not mention the intermediary,

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We have also learned this

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

As we learned:

Naḥum 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 Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan],

who received it from the Prophets,

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

a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai:

One who sows his field with two kinds of wheat

[for example, reddish wheat and white wheat], if he

makes them into one grain heap,

he

gives one corner offering

for all of it; but if he makes them into

two grain heaps,

he

gives two corner offerings,

one corner offering for each kind.

Thus, Naḥum the Scribe was careful to mention the first person, Moses our teacher, and Rabbi Meyasha, who was the last;

whereas

he did not mention

Joshua and Caleb,

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

he did not count them—

and

learn from this:

There is no concern about omitting the intermediaries when transmitting a teaching.

Mishna: