Mishnayos Nazir Perek 7 Mishnah 4
Change text layout:
נזיר פרק ז׳ משנה ד׳
Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting that impurity. If someone who became impure from one of those sources of impurity enters the Temple, he violates the prohibition against an impure individual entering the sacred space. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is likewise not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. Rabbi Meir said: This impurity from a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal. The Torah clearly states that one rendered impure from a creeping animal is prohibited from entering the Temple (see Leviticus 5:2–3). The mishna continues to address the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. Rabbi Akiva said: I discussed this matter before Rabbi Eliezer and suggested the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, which does not render a person impure in a tent, a nazirite must nevertheless shave for touching it or carrying it, then in the case of a quarter-log of blood, which is more stringent in that it renders a person impure in a tent, is it not logical that a nazirite should shave for touching it or carrying it? Rabbi Eliezer said to me: What is this, Akiva? One cannot argue by means of an a fortiori inference here, in this particular case. However, Rabbi Eliezer did not provide a reason for this response. Rabbi Akiva continued: And when I came and presented these matters before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well, i.e., your logic is flawless, but they indeed said that this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which cannot be refuted by means of an a fortiori inference.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁהַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכָל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא תְהֵא זוֹ קַלָּה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּנְתִּי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעָהּ וְעַל מַשָּׂאָהּ. אָמַר לִי, מַה זֶה עֲקִיבָא, אֵין דָּנִין כָּאן מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לִי, יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ, אֶלָּא כֵּן אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה:
Bartenura
חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש. אם נטמא באותה טומאה ונכנס למקדש, או אכל קדשים קודם שטהר מטומאתו, חייבין עליה כרת אם היה מזיד, או קרבן עולה ויורד אם היה שוגג:
לא תהא זו קלה מן השרץ. דחייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש, כדכתיב בויקרא {ח׳} או בנבלת שרץ טמא. ומילתא דר״מ ליתא, שהרי מגע ומשא של עצם כשעורה שהוא קל שאינו מטמא באהל, הנזיר מגלח עליה כדתנן במתניתין, ורביעית דם שהיא חמורה שמטמא באהל אין הנזיר מגלח עליה:
אין דנין כאן ק״ו. שאין דנין ק״ו על דבר שהוא הלכה למשה מסיני, שעצם כשעורה אינו כתוב בתורה אלא הלכה היא, ואין דנין ק״ו מהלכה. והן הן דברי ר״א הן הן דברי ר׳ יהושע שאמר אלא כך אמרו הלכה:
חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש – if he was defiled by the same defilement and entered into the Temple, or he at Holy Things prior to his purifying from his defilement, he is liable for extirpation for it if it was done willfully, or if it was done inadvertently, a sliding-scale offering (where the financial situation of the sinner is taken into account in determining the nature of the sin-offering that he brings).
לא תהא זו קלה מן השרץ – that they are liable for it for entering into the Temple , as it is written in Leviticus (Chapter 5, Verse 2 – the chapter is not the one indicated by the Bartenura commentary: “or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing – [and the fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean, he realizes his guilt].” But the matter of Rabbi Meir does not apply, for contact with and/or carrying of a barley-corn’s bulk of a bone which is the more lenient, which does not defile in a tent [through overshadowing], the Nazirite shaves/cuts his hair for it, as it is taught in our Mishnah (Tractate Nazir, Chapter 7, Mishnah 3), and a quarter-Kab of blood which is more stringent which does defile in a tent [through overshadowing), the Nazirite does not shave for it.
אין דנין כאן ק"ו – for we do not deduce an argument from minor to major (i.e., from the lesser to the greater) on a matter which is a Halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai since the a barley-corn’s bulk of a bone is not written in the Torah, but it is a Halakha, and we don’t deduce an argument from minor to major from Halakha, whether they are the words of Rabbi Eliezer or whether they are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua who stated it, but rather, this what they stated is the Halakha.