|  |  | Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir ### Folio 57a GEMARA. The question was propounded: Was it [the law concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone1 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 blood3 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 ## CHAPTER VIII 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] POLL6 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] DAYS8 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 YOURS, AND THESE ARE YOUR SACRIFICES IN PURITY. GEMARA. The Mishnah Says: TWO NAZIRITES TO WHOM SOMEONE SAYS, 'I SAW ONE OF YOU DEFILED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU IT WAS [etc.]: Now why [is this necessary]?9 For whence do we derive all [the laws concerning] doubtful defilement [arising] in a private domain?10 [Is it not] from [the regulations regarding] a faithless wife?11 [Whence it may be in ferred that] just as in the case of a faithless wife [only] the lover and his mistress are together,12 so in every case of doubtful defilement in a private domain [the defilement is assumed to be definite] only if there were but two persons present, whereas in the present instance, the two nazirites and the one standing near13 make three, so that it becomes [the same as] a case of doubtful defilement in a public domain [and the rule is:] Every case of doubtful defilement in a public domain remains clean?14 — Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: [The Mishnah assumes that the third person] says, 'I saw a source of defilement thrown between you?15 R. Ashi commented: This is also indicated [in the language of the Mishnah] To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Viz., that a nazirite must poll if he touches a bone of that size. And this was the reason that R. Akiba's argument was not accepted. Viz., that it defiles by overshadowing'. I.e., no new properties may be added by an argument to what is traditionally known. Thus the first alternative is meant. When both have completed their periods of naziriteship. One set of each kind of sacrifice. The usual period of naziriteship. Why should either of them have to take account of the possibility that he has become unclean? Viz.: That cases of doubtful defilement in a private domain are treated as if definitely unclean. Cf. Num. V, 11ff. The woman is regarded as having defiled her marital relationship and must undergo the ordeal of the bitter waters though there is no evidence of unfaithfulness; v. Sot. 28b. Proceedings involving the drinking of bitter waters can be taken against a faithless wife only if there is no eye-witness of unfaithfulness; v. Num. V, 13. and Sot. 2b. Who asserts that he saw one of them become unclean. And so each nazirite should regard himself as clean and need bring no sacrifice for defilement. And the third person was at a distance, so that the conditions for a private domain were fulfilled. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nazir 57b for it says: BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU IT WAS, which proves [that he was not in their company].1 THEY MUST POLL AND BRING [etc.]: But why [should they be allowed to poll]? Perhaps they are not unclean and they will [nevertheless] have rounded [the corners Of the head]?2 — Samuel replied: [The Mishnah is speaking] Of a woman or a minor.3 Why does he not regard [the Mishnah] as speaking of an adult [male nazirite], the rounding of the whole head not being considered [an infringement of the prohibition against] rounding?4 — Since he does not do so, it follows that Samuel holds that the rounding of the whole head is considered [an infringement of the prohibition against] rounding. Mar Zutra taught this exposition of Samuel with reference to a subsequent Mishnah [which reads]: A nazirite who was in doubt whether he had been defiled and in doubt whether he had been a certified leper may eat sacred meats after sixty days [etc.]5 and must shave four times.6 [But why?]7 Will he not have marred [the corners of his beard]?8 — Samuel replied: [The Mishnah is speaking] of a woman or a minor.9 R. Huna said: One who rounds [the head of] a minor is guilty.10 R. Adda b. Ahabah said to R. Huna: Then who shaves your [children's heads]? He replied: Hoba.11 [Rab Adda exclaimed:] Does Hoba wish to bury her children?12 During the whole of R. Adda b. Ahabah's lifetime, none of R. Huna's children survived.13 Seeing that both [R. Huna and R. Adda] hold that rounding the whole head is [an infringement of the rule against] rounding,14 wherein do they differ?15 — R. Huna holds that [the verse,] Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard,16 [signifies] that to whomsoever marring is applicable,17 rounding is applicable, and since marring does not apply to women, rounding, too, does not apply to them.18 R. Adda b. Ahabah, on the other hand, holds that both he who rounds and he who is rounded are included [in the prohibition],19 the one who rounds being compared to the one who is rounded, [to the effect that] wherever the one who is rounded is guilty, the one who rounds is also guilty. Hence, since a child is not punishable20 and so is not guilty [of the offence of rounding], he who rounds [the child] is also not guilty.21 Can we say that [the question of] rounding the whole head is the subject of [controversy between] Tannaim? For our Rabbis have taught: Why does Scripture mention his head?22 Since it says, ye shall not round the corners of your heads,23 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files For otherwise it should have read: 'And I have forgotten which of you it was'. Which is forbidden except to a nazirite or a leper; v. Lev. XIX. 27. For whom there is no prohibition against rounding. Cf. supra 41a. Infra 59b; v. supra 55b for relevant notes. 'And drink wine and have contact with the dead after one hundred and twenty days', which occurs in the Mishnah is here contracted to 'shave four times' after the Baraitha quoted on page 60a. Inserted with BaH, i.e., why may he shave in case of doubt? And this is forbidden (v. Lev. XIX, 27) unless he is actually a leper. The reading we have adopted is that of Rashi and Tosaf. Our printed text has: 'Will he not have rounded?' in which case there is no difference between Mar Zutra and the earlier statement. On our reading the point of Mar Zutra's statement is that we are without definite evidence of Samuel's opinion on the subject of rounding the whole head. Who have no beards. Of transgressing the command not to round. The wife of R. Huna, who, being a woman, was not commanded not to round. If the rounding of a child's head is forbidden, it is also forbidden for a woman to round it. Although R. Adda himself would have allowed the children's heads to be rounded even by a man (v. infra), his unfortunate forecast proved true during his lifetime. For the point at issue was whether this was permitted in the case of a minor, but both agreed that it is forbidden with an adult. Why does the one permit a woman to round a child and the other not allow it. What is the point at issue? Lev. XIX, 27. I.e. men who have beards. I.e., There is no penalty even if a woman rounds an adult. But a man may not round a minor. I.e., 'Ye shall not round' refers to both. For any offence. Hence even an adult may round a child. Thus when R. Adda said that Hoba should not poll the children, he was arguing on R. Huna's premises. Of the leper; although it has already said that he must shave all his hair; Lev. XIV, 9. Speaking of all persons Lev. XIX, 27. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |