Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 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 air2  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 naziriteship15  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

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  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.
  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. [H]. So Jast.; or better, 'sailing boat', v. Krauss TA. II, p. 341, who connects it with Grk. [G].
  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.

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 defiled3  and in doubt whether he had been a declared leper,4

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  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.