Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 56a

may eat sacred meats after sixty days.1  and drink wine and touch the dead after one hundred and twenty days.2  In connection with this passage it has been taught: This is only true of a short naziriteship, but in the case of a naziriteship of [say,] a year, he may eat sacred meats [only] after two years, and drink wine and touch the dead after four years.3  Now if you suppose that the days [of declared leprosy] help to discharge his [naziriteship], then three years and thirty days should be enough?4

R. Ashi raised the following objection:5  I am only told that the days Of his defilement are not reckoned in the number [of days of his naziriteship]. How do we know [that the same is true] of the days of his declared leprosy? This follows by analogy. [After] the days of defilement, he must poll and bring an offering, and [after] the days of his declared leprosy, he must poll and bring an offering. Whence we should infer that just as the days of his defilement are not reckoned in the number [of days of his naziriteship], so the days of his declared leprosy are not reckoned in the number! No! If you say this of the days of his defilement, where the previous days6  are rendered void because of them, would you also say it of the days of his declared leprosy where the previous days are not rendered void because of them? I can argue then in the following manner. Seeing that a nazirite [who undertakes his naziriteship] at the graveside, whose hair is ripe for polling because of his naziriteship, does not count [the time spent at the grave] in the number [of days of his naziriteship].7  surely the days of his declared leprosy when his hair is not ripe for polling because of the naziriteship8  should not be counted. In this way we may only infer that the period of his declared leprosy [may not be counted]. How do we know that [the same is true] of his tale of days?9  This follows by analogy.

To Part b
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. When he will have shaved twice for his leprosy.
  2. After polling once for his defilement and again on terminating his naziriteship, v. infra 59b.
  3. Tosef. Ha. VI, 1.
  4. The third polling taking place after two years and thirty days, thirty days being the time for a growth of hair and the rest of the year will be coincident with the time of his leprosy. Since this is not the case, it follows that the days of his leprosy are not reckoned towards the naziriteship.
  5. To refute R. Hisda.
  6. The period of naziriteship counted before defilement.
  7. I.e., he does not poll for his defilement, but begins his naziriteship after leaving the grave and becoming clean and then polls on completing his naziriteship.
  8. He has to poll because he was a leper; cf supra 17b.
  9. The seven days that he 'tells' on recovery; v. Lev. XIV. 8.
Tractate List

Nazir 56b

 Just as [after] the days of his declared leprosy he must poll,1  so [after] his tale of days [he must poll],2  and so, just as the days of his declared leprosy are not reckoned in the number [of days of his naziriteship], so his tale of days [are not counted]. It might be thought that the same is true of the days that he is shut up,3  and this too could be derived by analogy. A declared leper defiles both couch and seat,4  and during the days that he is shut up, he defies both couch and seat. And so if you infer that the days of his declared leprosy are not counted in the number [of days of his naziriteship], neither should the days when he is shut up be counted in the number. But this is not so. If it is true of the days of his declared leprosy [that the days are not counted], it is because [after] his declared leprosy, he must poll and bring an offering and therefore they are not counted, whereas since [after] the days that he is shut up he does not need to poll nor need he bring an offering, therefore they can be counted in the number [of days of his naziriteship]. From these arguments [the Rabbis] inferred that the days of [the leper's] telling and the days of his declared leprosy are not counted in the number [of days of his naziriteship], but the days [of defilement] of a male or female sufferer from gonorrhoea, and the days when a leper is shut up are counted.5

Now one of the arguments mentioned is: 'No! If you say this of the days of his defilement where the previous days are rendered void because of them, would you also say it of the days of his declared leprosy [where the previous days are not rendered void]'. What kind [of naziriteship is referred to]? Should it be a short naziriteship,6  then we require a [thirty days] growth of hair and there is not such a growth.7  Thus it must be a long naziriteship [which is referred to] and yet it says that they are not reckoned in the number [of days of the naziriteship]. From this it follows [that the period of declared leprosy is never counted].8  This proves it.

MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER9  SAID ON BEHALF OF R. JOSHUA THAT EVERY DEFILEMENT [CONVEYED] BY A CORPSE FOR WHICH A NAZIRITE MUST POLL ENTAILS A LIABILITY FOR ONE ENTERING THE SANCTUARY10  [WHILST THUS DEFILED], AND EVERY DEFILEMENT [CONVEYED] BY A CORPSE FOR WHICH A NAZIRITE IS NOT REQUIRED TO POLL DOES NOT ENTAIL A LIABILITY FOR ONE ENTERING THE SANCTUARY [WHILE SO DEFILED]. R. MEIR SAID: SUCH [DEFILEMENT] SHOULD NOT BE LESS SERIOUS THAN [DEFILEMENT THROUGH] A REPTILE.11

GEMARA. Did R. Eliezer receive this [statement] in the name of R. Joshua?12  Did he not receive it in the name of R. Joshua b. Memel, as has been taught: R. Eliezer13  said: When I went to 'Ardacus14  I found R. Joshua b. Pethar Rosh15  sitting and expound ing points of law in the presence of R. Meir. [One of them was as follows.] Every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse for which a nazirite must poll entails a penalty for entering the Sanctuary, and every defilement [arising] from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to poll, does not entail a penalty for entering the Sanctuary. [R. Meir] said to him; Such [defilement] should not be less stringent than [defilement by] a reptile? I then asked [R. Joshua b. Pethar Rosh]. 'Are you at all versed in [the sayings of] R. Joshua b. Memel?' He replied. 'I am'. Thus did R. Joshua b. Memel tell me in the name of R. Joshua: Every defilement [arising] from a corpse for which a nazirite must poll, entails a penalty for entering the Sanctuary, and every defilement [arising] from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to poll, does not entail a penalty for entering the Sanctuary.16  Thus we see that it was in the name of R. Joshua b. Memel that [R. Eliezer] received it? — They replied:17  From this it follows that whenever a tradition is transmitted through three [men], the first and the last [name] are mentioned, whilst the middle [name] is not mentioned.18

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We, too. have learned to the same effect: Nahum the Scribe19  said, This was transmitted to me from R. Measha, who received it from his father, who received it from 'the Pairs',20  who received it from the Prophets as a tradition [handed] to Moses on Mt. Sinai: If a man who has sown his field with two varieties of wheat collects them on one threshing floor,21  he need leave [only] one pe'ah,22  but if he collects them on two threshing floors,23  he must leave two pe'ahs.24  Now here, Joshua and Caleb are not mentioned [between Moses and the Prophets]. Thus it follows from this [that intermediate names may be omitted].

MISHNAH. R. AKIBA SAID: I ARGUED IN THE PRESENCE OF R. ELIEZER25  AS FOLLOWS. SEEING THAT A BARLEY-CORN'S BULK OF BONE WHICH DOES NOT DEFILE A MAN BY 'OVERSHADOWING', COMPELS A NAZIRITE TO POLL SHOULD HE TOUCH IT OR CARRY IT, THEN SURELY A QUARTER [-LOG] OF BLOOD WHICH DEFILES A MAN BY 'OVERSHADOWING, SHOULD CAUSE A NAZIRITE TO POLL IF HE TOUCHES IT OR CARRIES IF?26  HE REPLIED: WHAT NOW, AKIBA! TO ARGUE FROM THE LESSER TO THE GREATER IS NOT PERMITTED IN THIS INSTANCE.' WHEN I AFTERWARDS WENT AND RECOUNTED THESE WORDS TO R. JOSHUA, HE SAID TO ME, 'YOUR ARGUMENT WAS SOUND, BUT [IN THIS CASE] THIS HAS BEEN DECLARED AS A FILED HALACHAH.27

- To Next Folio -
Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. Lev. XIV, 8.
  2. Ibid. v. 9.
  3. A doubtful case of leprosy is isolated for seven days; v. Lev. XIII, 4-6.
  4. V. Lev. XV, 4, for this type of defilement.
  5. The whole of the last paragraph occurs in Sifre to Num. VI, 12. R. Ashi now proceeds with his objection.
  6. And we are told that the period before the declared leprosy is counted, but not the period of leprosy.
  7. If we reckon the days before leprosy.
  8. Thus R. Hisda's statement is refuted.
  9. [Read with I. 'R. Eleazar (b. Shammua)', a disciple of R. Akiba. R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus the teacher of R. Akiba could not have reported a teaching in the name of R. Joshua a disciple of his disciple. V. also n. 10 and p. 201 n. 1.]
  10. The Temple precincts. The liability is a sacrifice, if the offence is committed unwittingly.
  11. R. Meir's argument is: Since there is a penalty for entering the Temple after defilement by a reptile, although the person so defiled does not have to be sprinkled on the third and seventh days, then in the case of defilement by a corpse for which a nazirite need not poll. Just as he need not after defilement by a reptile, there should be a penalty on entering the Temple, for in this case he must be sprinkled on the third and seventh days.
  12. R. Joshua b. Hananiah (c. 100 C.E.).
  13. [Var. lec. R. Eleazar.]
  14. Identified with Damascus (Jast.). [Or, with Ard a-Suk near the source of the Jordan (Horowitz I. S. Palestine, p. 78).]
  15. [Var. lec. 'b. Pethora'; 'b. Bathyra'. V. Zuckermandel Tosefta p. 290.]
  16. Tosef. Naz. V, 3. Tos. Oh. IV, 7.
  17. [Asheri and Tosaf. omit 'they replied'.]
  18. Thus in our Mishnah though the tradition was received from R. Joshua through R. Joshua b. Memel and R. Eliezer, only the first and last of these is mentioned.
  19. Heb. rkck _ libellarius.
  20. Zugoth (Pairs), from Jose B. Jo'ezer and Jose B. Johanan to Hillel and Shammai; v. Aboth (Sonc. ed.) p. 3, n. 8.
  21. I.e., does not keep them separate.
  22. Pe'ah. The corner of the field that was left for the poor. V. Lev. XXIII, 22.
  23. Thus treating them as two separate crops.
  24. Pe'ah II, 6. The text here has been emended after all the commentators to agree with the Mishnah in Pe'ah. The text, which is supported by the MSS., quotes instead Pe'ah III, 2, as the tradition of Nahum: If a man sowed dill or mustard seed in two or three separate places, he must leave pe'ah from each.
  25. R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. In the last Mishnah by R. Eliezer, R. Eleazar b. Shammua is meant. V. supra p. 208, n. 4.
  26. Yet the Mishnah 54a counts the quarter-log of blood as one of the things for which a nazirite need not poll.
  27. As a tradition from Sinai and no inference may be drawn.
Tractate List