Torah Community Connections

Week 77 - Friday - 18 May 2001

NAZIR: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 3

But the sekhakhot, and the pera 'ot, and bet ha-peras, and the land of the nations, and the golel, and the dofek, and a revi'it of blood, and a tent, and one-quarter of bones, and utensils that touch the dead, and the days of his counting, and the days of his confirmed tzara'at - for these the nazir does not shave, and he sprinkles on the third and on the seventh, and does not forfeit the preceding ones, and he begins to count immediately, and he has no sacrifice. In truth they said, The days of the zav and the zavah, and the days of confinement of a metzora - these are counted for him.

Kehati

This mishnah is a continuation of the preceding mishnah; after the preceding mishnah listed the corpse related uncleanness for which the nazir shaves, this mishnah teaches the uncleanness for which the nazir does not shave.

But the sekhakhot - tree branches hanging over the ground and form a "tent" underneath them, and the pera'ot - stones or pieces of wood that protrude from a fence (from the same root as "grow long" [pera]), and there is kazayit of a corpse under one of the branches of the sekhakhot, or under one of the stones of the pera'ot, and a nazir passed under the sekhakhot or under the pera'ot, and it was not known whether he passed under the branch or the stone which forms a tent over the uncleanness, and bet ha-peras - the Sages decreed that in a field in which a grave has been plowed over, an area of one hundred amot around the grave becomes bet ha-peras, i.e., an area with doubtful corpse related uncleanness, and its soil conveys uncleanness by contact and by carrying, since we fear that the plow might have dragged along with it a bone the size of a barley grain from the bones of a corpse (the term "peras" comes from the phrase "share paros, lit., "spread"] your bread to the hungry" [Isa. 58:7], for the plowing breaks the bones and scatters them outside the grave); and the nazir crossed bet ha-peras;

and the land of the nations - during the period of his nezirut, the nazir left Eretz Israel and returned, and the Sages decreed that the lands of the non-Jews are unclean (see above, 3:6), and - the nazir touched - the golel, and - or - the dofek - according to one interpretation, the golel is the coffin cover, and the dofek is the sides of the coffin upon which the top covering rests (Rashi; Bartenura);

According to a second interpretation, the golel is a large stone which was placed on the grave, i.e., the tombstone, and the dofek is two lower stones upon which the tombstone rests (Rabbeinu Tam);.

According to a third interpretation, the golel is the cover of the tomb: when it was the practice to bury the dead in niches within a cave, a stone was rolled (le-golel, to roll) over the opening of the cave; in order to prevent this stone, which was round, from rolling back after it had sealed off the entrance, another stone, the dofek, was wedged under it; when it was the practice to dig graves in fields, after the hole had been sufficiently dug out, ledges would be built on the sides, and large stones would be placed on these ledges to cover the corpse; the stones resting on the ledges were called golel, and the ledges on either side were called dofek (see Eruv. 1:7, at the end of our commentary on the mishnah), and - or the nazir touched - a revi'it - of a log- of blood - from a corpse, and - or he touched a tent - enclosing a corpse (Rambam), and - or he was under the roof with -one-quarter - kav - of bones - of a corpse (but the nazir does shave for touching or for carrying one-quarter of bones - Bartenura); and - or the nazir touched - utensils that touch the dead - that are as unclean as the corpse itself, and whoever touches them becomes unclean for seven days;

and the days of his counting - of a nazir who is a metzora, for a metzora counts seven days after he becomes cleansed from his tzara'at, as it is written "and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean; and after that he may come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent seven days" (Lev. 14:8), and the days of his - the nazir who is a leper - confirmed tzara'at - i.e., the days in which he is a confirmed metzora, after the kohen has confirmed him unclean; he is then called a "confirmed metzora";

for these - uncleannesses listed in this mishnah, the nazir does not - have to - shave - perform the tiglahat of uncleanness, and - if he became unclean by a corpse related uncleanness in one of the manners listed above, he sprinkles - the water of the ashes of the red heifer is sprinkled on him -on the third - day - and on the seventh - day of his uncleanness, and does not forfeit the preceding ones - the days of his nezirut that he counted in a state of cleanness, but rather the days in which he was unclean the uncleanness of seven, or the "days of his counting" and the "confirmation days" of the nazir who contracted tzara'at, are not credited to him in counting his nezirut, and he begins to count - the period of his nezirut, in order to complete the period of his nezirut that he counted prior to becoming unclean, immediately - after he immersed himself and the sun set on him, and he has no sacrifice - he does not bring a sacrifice for his uncleanness, for these uncleannesses do not obligate him to perform the tiglahat of uncleanness.

In truth they - the Sages, said - i.e., it is an accepted law from past times; the Gemara also explains: "Every instance of 'In truth they said' is the halakhah" (B. M. 60a) ("and we do not hesitate or stutter in the matter" -Rashi); the Jerusalem Talmud, however, states, "Every case in which the Sages taught, 'In truth,' is an instance of a law received orally from Moses at Sinai"; according to another interpretation, this does not necessarily mean a law received orally from Moses at Sinai, but rather it is as a law received orally from Moses at Sinai (Rashi and Bartenura on Ter.2: I), The days - of uncleanness - of the zav - see Lev. 15:2-13, and the - days of uncleanness of the - zavah - see Lev. 15:25-28, and the days of confinement of a metzora - if a nazir contracted tzara'at, the kohen confined him for seven days, and on the seventh day the kohen saw that it had not spread in his skin (Lev. 13:4-5), these - days, are counted for him - for the nazir (or for the nezirah), for his period of nezfrut, and it goes without saying that they do not forfeit the previous days.

NAZIR: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 4:

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, Every uncleanness from the dead for which the nazir shaves - they are liable for it for coming to the Temple; and every uncleanness from the dead for which the nazir does not shave - they are not liable for it for coming to the Temple. Rabbi Meir said, This should not be less stringent than the creeping thing. Rabbi Akiva said, I reasoned before Rabbi Eliezer, If a bone the size of a barley grain, which does not make a person unclean in the tent, the nazir shaves for its touch and its carrying - how much more should a revi'it of blood which does make a person unclean in the tent, cause the nazir to shave for its touch and its carrying? He said to me, What is this, Akiva! We cannot reason here with a kal va-homer. And when I came and related the statements before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me, You said well, but they did state the law.

Kehati

Rabbi Eliezer - according to another version, Rabbi Eleazar (Melekhet Shelomo), said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua, Every uncleanness from the dead for which the nazir shaves - i.e., all the uncleannesses that were taught in mishnah 2, above, they are liable for it for coming to the Temple - whoever became unclean by this uncleanness and entered the Temple prior to cleansing himself of his uncleanness is liable to karet, if he did this intentionally, or a sacrifice, if he did this unintentionally; and every uncleanness from a corpse for which the nazir does not shave - i.e., those which were taught in the previous mishnah, they are not liable for it for coming to the Temple - it was learned by an oral tradition that the same distinction which applies to corpse related uncleannessess regarding the tiglahat of the nazir also applies regarding entering the Temple (Hameiri; see also Tiferet Yisrael).

Rabbi Meir said, This - corpse related uncleanness for which the nazir does not shave, should not be less stringent than - the uncleanness because of - the creeping thing - for which they are liable for entering the Temple, as it is written, "or the carcass of unclean creeping things" (Lev. 5:2). Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua; he holds that even for corpse related uncleanness for which the nazir does not shave, one is liable for entering the Temple, for the uncleanness of a creeping thing is less stringent for a nazir than corpse related uncleanness for which he does not shave, because uncleanness caused by a creeping thing does not interrupt his nezirut at all, whereas corpse related uncleanness for which he does not shave interrupts his nezirut for the days of the uncleanness, and these days are not credited for him; and if one who became unclean because of a creeping thing is liable because of this for entering the Temple, then all the more so is one who became unclean by one of the types of uncleanness for which the nazir does not shave, liable because of this for entering the Temple (Rashi). The law is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Akiva said, I reasoned before Rabbi Eliezer - a kal va-homer, If a bone - from a corpse - as a barley grain, which does not make a person unclean in the tent - a law transmitted from Sinai, yet the nazir shaves for its touch and its carrying - as was taught above: "and for a bone as a barley grain: for its touch, and for its carrying" (mishnah 2), how much more should a revi'it of blood - of a corpse, which does make a person unclean in the tent - hence this uncleanness is more stringent than the uncleanness caused by a bone the size of a barley grain, cause the nazir to shave for its touch and its carrying - is this not a kal va-homer? And why was it taught (in the previous mishnah) that the nazir does not shave for a revi'it of blood? He -Rabbi Eliezer, said to me, What is this, Akiva - that you learn this kal va-homer! We cannot reason here with a kal va-homer - and Rabbi Eliezer did not explain himself.

And when I came and related the statements - regarding the kal va-homer that I learned before Rabbi Eliezer, before Rabbi Yehoshua, he - Rabbi Yehoshua, said to me, You said well - the kal va-homer that you learned is well-reasoned, and cannot be disputed but they did state the law - i.e., that the uncleanness of a bone the size of a barley grain is not stated explicitly in the Torah, but it is the law, i.e., it is a law received by Moses at Sinai (Rashi; Tosafot), and a kal va-homer may not be generated on the basis of a special oral law. This is also the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives