Nazir - Daf 55
- Machlokes about one who enters ארץ העמים in a carriage, etc.
The Gemara suggests that there is a machlokes Tannaim about the nature of the tumah of ארץ העמים: הנכנס לארץ העמים בשידה תיבה ומגדל – One who enters the land of the nations in a carriage, trunk, or closet (which are impervious to tumah), Rebbi says he tamei, and Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah says he is tahor. The Gemara first assumes that Rebbi holds that the tumah imposed on ארץ העמים is regarding its airspace, so the container does not protect him from tumah, and Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah holds it is because of the soil (for possible unknown graves), so the container protects him from tumah. Three alternate explanations are offered:
- All Tannaim hold the soil is metamei but disagree if a moving ohel blocks tumah (presented in the next point).
- All Tannaim agree that the airspace is metamei, but they argue if the decree included an unusual mode of entry, such as a trunk (as opposed to a boat or wagon).
- They argue if he is considered tamei because they were concerned שמא יוציא ראשו ורובו לשם – perhaps he may extend his head and most of his body out over the soil.
- אהל זרוק
The Gemara above suggested that all Tannaim hold that the soil of ארץ העמים is metamei, but Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah holds: אהל זרוק שמיה אהל – a moving ohel is considered an ohel. (The container, although it is in motion, still qualifies as an ohel to block the soil’s tumah from penetrating). Rebbi holds אהל זרוק לא שמיה אהל – a moving ohel is not considered an ohel (so the nazir is not protected from the tumah beneath him). According to our girsa, the Gemara challenges this interpretation from a Baraisa, in which Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah says: תיבה שהיא מלאה כלים – A trunk full of utensils, וזרקה על פני המת טמאה – and one threw it over a corpse, it is tamei. ואם היתה מונחת טהורה – But if it was at rest, it is tahor. This demonstrates that Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah holds that a moving ohel does not qualify as an ohel! Therefore, this explanation of the machlokes is rejected.
- Tzaraas days may be counted towards a lenghty nezirus
The Mishnah taught that a metzora’s “days of counting” and “days of confirmed tzaraas” are not counted towards his nezirus. Rav Chisda qualifies this: לא שנו אלא בנזירות מועטת – They only taught this regarding a short nezirus, אבל בנזירות מרובה מיסלק נמי סלקין ליה – but for a lengthy nezirus, [the tzaraas days] are also counted towards his nezirus. They do not count for a short nezirus simply because the metzora must shave his entire body at the end of his taharah process, and a nazir must have a thirty-day growth of hair to complete his nezirus. Rav Sheravya challenged him from our Mishnah, which taught that he begins to count after his taharah and does not forfeit previous days. This cannot refer to a minimum nezirus of thirty days, because since he requires a thirty-day growth, he would “forfeit” his previously observed days after shaving for his tzaraas. Rather, it must refer to a lengthy nezirus, yet it states that the tzaraas days are not counted!? He answered that it can be discussing a fifty-day nezirus (for example), דיתיב עשרין ואיתילידא ביה צרעת – in which he observed twenty days and tzaraas developed, מגלח צרעתו והדר יתיב תלתין יומין דנזיר –therefore he shaves for his tzaraas, and observes the remaining thirty days of nezirus, דהא אית ליה גידול שער – since he has the requisite thirty-day growth of hair. Rav Chisda is successfully challenged on the next Daf.
