Talmud Nazir (E)

LIABILITY FOR ONE ENTERING THE SANCTUARY
10
 [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. Eliezer
13
 said: When I went to
‘Ardacus
14
 I found R. Joshua b. Pethar Rosh
15
 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 Scribe
19
 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. ELIEZER
25
 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
____________________
(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.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 57a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 57a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 57a
GEMARA. The question was propounded: Was it [the law concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone
1
that was a halachah and that of the quarter [-log] of blood [that was being derived] by argument, and
[this is what is meant by saying that] an argument from the lesser to the greater is not permitted in
the case of a halachah?
2
 Or, was it [the law concerning] a quarter [-log] of blood
3
 that was a
halachah, while [the law concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone [was simply used] for the
argument, and [this is what is meant by] saying that an argument from the lesser to the greater is not
permitted in the case of a halachah?
4
 — Come and hear: [It has been taught: The rulings concerning]
a barley-corn's bulk of bone is a halachah,’ [the rulings of] a quarter [-log] of blood [can be derived]
by an argument; but an argument from the lesser to the greater is not permitted in the case of a
halachah.
5
 
    C H A P T E R   V I I I
 
    MISHNAH. TWO NAZIRITES TO WHOM SOMEONE SAYS, I SAW ONE OF YOU
DEFILED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU IT WAS,’ MUST [BOTH] POLL
6
 AND
BRING SACRIFICES [PRESCRIBED] FOR DEFILEMENT AND SACRIFICES [DUE ON
TERMINATING A NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY,
7
 [AND ONE OF THEM] MUST SAY, ‘IF I AM
UNCLEAN, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT ARE MINE, AND THE SACRIFICES IN
PURITY ARE YOURS, WHILST IF I AM THE ONE WHO IS CLEAN, THE SACRIFICES IN
PURITY ARE MINE AND THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT ARE YOURS.’ THEY MUST
THEN COUNT THIRTY [MORE] DAYS
8
 AND BRING SACRIFICES IN PURITY AND [ONE
OF THEM] MUST SAY, IF I AM THE ONE WHO WAS UNCLEAN, THE SACRIFICES FOR
DEFILEMENT WERE MINE, THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY WERE YOURS, AND THESE
ARE MY SACRIFICES IN PURITY, WHILST IF I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS CLEAN, THE
SACRIFICES IN PURITY WERE MINE, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT WERE

---