Talmud Nazir (E)

‘overshadowing’, are treated like bodies of gentiles that defile at least by contact.
(4) For we already know this from the rule of one who touches a bone.
(5) [In accordance with the principle of Talmudic hermeneutics to apply a Biblical statement superfluous in respect of its
own law to some other subject.]
(6) And we cannot infer from this that a limb which has not a bone of a barley-corn's bulk defiles a nazirite who touches
it.
(7) The controversy concerns the question whether the naziriteship after purification commences immediately or whether
it does not begin until the necessary sacrifices have been offered; v. supra 18b.
(8) Lit., ‘come and hear’.
(9) With reference to the defilements for which a nazirite need not poll; infra 54b.
(10) Where it does not say immediately’.
(11)  Under which there is a source of defilement, the exact branch being unknown. Such a branch would defile by
‘overshadowing’, and the person becomes unclean because of the doubt that has arisen.
(12) The meaning is mutatis mutandis, the same as in previous note.
(13)  A field in which a grave has been ploughed becomes a beth peras, and renders unclean through contact for a
distance of half a furrow of one hundred cubits in each direction. Peras Half.
(14) V supra 19b.
(15)  According to Rabbenu Tam, ‘the tombstone and the side stones on a grave’. [The tombs in ancient times were
closed by means of large stones in order to protect them against the ravenous jackals (v. J.E. XII, p. 188). According to
Levy the golel was an upright stone put up at the entrance of every niche or chamber 
luf
 (v. B.B. (Sonc. Ed.) pp. 422ff,
for illustrations) into which the bodies were deposited; and the dofek is the buttressing stone which was placed in front
of the golel to prevent it from falling. For other views v. Krauss TA. II, pp. 488ff.]
(16) According to Tosaf. the meaning is ‘a quarter-log of blood or a quarter-kab of bones in a tent.’
(17) V. Lev. XIV, 8.
(18) According to Rashi; the period during which he offers his sacrifices for purification after the tale of days; v. Lev.
XIV, 9ff.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 54b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 54b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 54b
WHILST [THE UNCLEANNESS] DOES NOT RENDER VOID THE FORMER PERIOD,
1
 BUT
HE COMMENCES TO RESUME COUNTING [HIS NAZIRITESHIP] IMMEDIATELY [AFTER
PURIFICATION] AND THERE IS NO SACRIFICE.
2
 [THE SAGES] SAID IN FACT
3
 THAT THE
DAYS OF [DEFILEMENT OF] A MALE OR FEMALE SUFFERER FROM GONORRHOEA
4
AND THE DAYS THAT A LEPER IS SHUT UP
5
 ARE RECKONED [AS PART OF THE
NAZIRITESHIP].
 
    GEMARA. By SEKAKOTH is meant a tree that overhangs the ground and by PERA'OTH
protrusions from a fence.
6
 
    OR LAND OF THE GENTILES: The question was propounded: Did [the Rabbis] enact that the
land of the Gentiles [causes defilement] because of the air,
7
 or did they, perhaps, enact only because
of the soil?
8
 — Come and hear: HE MUST, HOWEVER, BE SPRINKLED ON THE THIRD AND
SEVENTH [DAYS]. Now if you suppose that it was [declared unclean] because of the air, what
need is there for sprinkling?
9
 Does it not follow then that it was because of the soil? — No. In point
of fact, it may have been because of the air, and when the Mishnah teaches [that he must be
sprinkled] it refers to the other instances. This indeed appears to be the case, since UTENSILS
THAT HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH A CORPSE are mentioned. Do such utensils necessitate
sprinkling?
10
 Thus it follows from this that [sprinkling] applies to the remainder only.
11
____________________
(1) I.e.,the period before defilement.
(2) I.e., the sacrifice prescribed for a nazirite after defilement
(3) 
,ntc
 Lit., ‘In truth did they say’. Rashi remarks that this phrase denotes a halachah received by Moses at Sinai.

---

V. B.M. 60a. Cf., however, below (56b) where this is derived by interpretation of the verses. [Rosenthal, F., Hoffmann
Festschrift, p. 40, explains the phrase as the latin vero _ ‘in fact’; and here is used to affirm the view that only the days of
defilement of a male or female sufferer from gonorrhoea and the days that a leper is shut up are reckoned, but not the
days of the leper's tale and his period of declared leprosy. This affirmation was necessary in view of the suggestion supra
56b that even in the latter case the days should be reckoned.]
(4) Cf. Lev. XV.
(5) Cf. Lev. XIII, 4ff
(6) Oh. VIII, 2, and Tosef. Oh. IX, 4.
(7)  So that entering the atmosphere of a foreign country renders unclean. For the time when this enactment was
promulgated. v. Shah. 15a.
(8) And one who does not touch the soil remains clean.
(9) Defilement from the air would be mild and would not necessitate sprinkling.
(10) In many instances they do not. [Vessels that come in contact with the dead do not communicate defilement to man
so as to render him a principal source of uncleanness. The only question arises in case of metal vessels which, according
to some authorities, become as grave a source of uncleanness as the dead itself. V. Tosaf. a.l.]
(11) I.e., to those to which we know it applies on other grounds. Thus the air of the lands of the gentiles may defile and
the Mishnah affords no evidence about it.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55a
    Can we say [that the controversy about the air of a foreign country] is the same as that between the
following Tannaim? [It has been taught:] If a person enters a foreign country in a box, or a chest, or
a portable turret, Rabbi declares him unclean, while R. Jose son of R. Judah declares him clean. Is
not this because Rabbi holds that [the uncleanness of the lands of the Gentiles]
1
 is because of the air
2
and R. Jose son of R. Judah holds that it is because of the soil?
3
 — No. Both would agree that
[foreign countries defile] because of the soil. The latter, however, holds that a tent in motion is still
counted a tent,
4
 whilst the former holds that a tent in motion does not constitute a tent.
5
 But have we
not been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah says that if a chest is full of utensils and someone throws it
in front of a corpse in a tent, it becomes unclean,
6
 whilst if it were there already [in the tent], it
remains clean?
7
 — It must therefore be that both [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah agree that
foreign countries defile] because of the air. The latter holds that since [travelling in a chest] is not
common the Rabbis did not intend the enactment to apply [to such a case].
8
 whilst the former holds
that although it is unusual, the Rabbis intended the enactment to apply to it. It has been taught to the
same effect:
9
 A person who enters a foreign country in a box, or a chest, or a portable turret remains
clean, whilst [if he enters] in a carriage. or a boat, or a ship with a mast,
10
 he becomes unclean.
11
 
    Alternatively,
12
 [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah] may dis agree here on the question [whether a
man travelling in a chest was declared unclean] for fear lest he put out his bead or the greater part of
his [body].
13
 It has been taught to this effect. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, a person who enters a
foreign country in a box, or a chest, or a portable turret is clean until he puts out his head or the
greater part of his [body].
 
    BUT HE COMMENCES TO RESUME COUNTING [IMMEDIATELY etc.]: R. Hisda said: It
was taught [that the days of declared leprosy are not counted] only in the case of a short
naziriteship,
14
 but in the case of a long naziriteship
15
 they also help to discharge [the days of his
naziriteship]. R. Sherabya objected: HE COMMENCES TO RESUME COUNTING
IMMEDIATELY AND DOES NOT ANNUL THE PREVIOUS PERIOD.
16
 What are the
circumstances? For if it is speaking of a short naziriteship, he requires [thirty days] growth of hair,
17
____________________
(1) [It is suggested that the uncleanness of the land of gentiles was decreed in the days of Alcimus in order to stem the
tide of immigration from Palestine that had set in as a result of his persecutions. v. Weiss, Dor I, 105.]
(2) And even in a chest, he touches the air.

---