Talmud Nazir (E)

(3) And since he has not touched the soil, he is clean.
(4) And protects whatever is inside from defilement from outside.
(5) And whatever is inside is accounted as having contact with the ground and becomes unclean.
(6) Together with its contents.
(7) Which proves that R. Jose b. R. Judah does not consider that a tent in motion affords protection from defilement.
(8) And so the person inside remains clean.
(9) That the reason R. Jose declares him clean is that this method of travelling is uncommon.
(10) 
thrext
. So Jast.; or better, ‘sailing boat’, v. Krauss TA. II, p. 341, who connects it with Grk. **]
(11) Tosef. Oh. XVIII, 2.
(12) It is now assumed: (i) That the enactment was because of the soil. (ii) That a tent in motion affords protection from
defilement. (iii) When a chest full of utensils is thrown in front of a corpse, it becomes unclean because it ceases to have
the character of a tent, protecting from defilement, and is treated as a utensil.
(13) When he would become unclean because of ‘overshadowing’ the soil.
(14) Of thirty days duration.
(15) Longer than thirty days when even if the period of leprosy is counted, thirty days still remain.
(16) It is clear from this that there has been a break in the counting.
(17) And so must ignore what has gone before and count thirty days.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 55b
and so it surely refers to a long naziriteship, and yet it teaches that HE COMMENCES TO COUNT
IMMEDIATELY? — [R. Sherabya] put the question and answered it himself. [The Mishnah is
speaking] of a naziriteship of, say, fifty days, of which he had observed twenty [days] when he
became leprous. He must then poll for his leprosy [when he is healed] and observe a further thirty
days of the nazirite [obligation], in which case he has a [thirty days] growth of hair.
1
 
    Rami b. Mama raised the following objection:
2
 [We have learnt:] A nazirite, who was in doubt
whether he had been defiled
3
 and in doubt whether he had been a declared leper,
4
____________________
(1) The days of declared leprosy cannot then be counted since he would not have thirty days left.
(2) To refute R. Hisda's statement.
(3) On the day he became a nazirite.
(4)  On the day that he became a nazirite, having perhaps been healed the same day. A nazirite who becomes unclean
must poll on becoming clean, and a leper shaves his body twice on recovering. Since this nazirite may not have been
unclean nor may he have been a leper, he cannot shave his head during the period of his naziriteship. He must therefore
count the full period before shaving because of the doubt, and allow a similar period to pass before the second and third
shaving. Since he may have been both a leper and unclean because of touching a dead body, he must count a fourth
period for his naziriteship in purity.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 56a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 56a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 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 days
6
 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
naziriteship
8
 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.
____________________
(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.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 56b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 56b
Talmud - Mas. 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. ELIEZER
9
 SAID ON BEHALF OF R. JOSHUA THAT EVERY DEFILEMENT
[CONVEYED] BY A CORPSE FOR WHICH A NAZIRITE MUST POLL ENTAILS A

---