Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 52

52b

QUESTION: The Gemara (52a) cites a Mishnah in Ohalos in which Rebbi Yehudah says that "there are six things which Rebbi Akiva is Metamei and the Chachamim are Metaher." In the list of those items, however, the Mishnah seems to list *seven*, and not six! The Gemara attempts to narrow down the number to six cases. The Gemara says that the Mishnah is only counting the items of Tum'ah which require a Nazir to shave his head if he becomes Tamei from those items through Tum'as Ohel. One of the cases about which they argue is "Etzem k'Se'orah" (a bone the size of a barley grain) which is not Metamei b'Ohel, and thus that case is not included in the count.

How can the Gemara say that the Mishnah in Ohalos is counting only those items of Tum'ah that require a Nazir to be Megale'ach as a result of becoming Tamei through Tum'as Ohel? One of the cases that the Mishnah does include in its count is Tum'ah caused by a Revi'is Dam (a fourth of a Lug of blood) from two Mesim, and yet the Mishnah earlier (49b) says that a Nazir must be Megale'ach only for a *Chatzi* (half) Lug of Dam and not for a Revi'is! A Revi'is Dam will *not* make a Nazir become Tamei to require him to be Megale'ach (whether through Maga, Masa, or Tum'as Ohel)! If the Mishnah in Ohalos is not counting items of Tum'ah that do not cause a Nazir to be Megale'ach, then the case of Revi'is Dam also should not be included in the count, and the Mishnah should say that there are *five* cases, and not six!

ANSWERS:

(a) The ROSH and the MEFARESH explain that Rebbi Akiva is following his own view in the Mishnah later (56b) where he says that a Nazir *is* Megale'ach for becoming Tamei with a Revi'is Dam. This is also the intention of Tosfos in this Sugya (52a, DH she'Ba). However, they ask that in the Mishnah there, Rebbi Akiva learns that the source that becoming Tamei from a Revi'is Dam causes the Nazir to be Megale'ach is from a Kal v'Chomer from "Etzem k'Se'orah!" We know that "Etzem k'Se'orah" is only Metamei through Maga (touching it) and Masa (carrying it), but not through Ohel. If the Gilu'ach that is done for becoming Tamei from Revi'is Dam is learned from the Gilu'ach for "Etzem k'Se'orah," then just like "Etzem k'Se'orah" causes the Nazir to be Megale'ach only when he touches or carries the bone (but not through Ohel), so, too, Revi'is Dam should cause him to be Megale'ach only through Maga and Masa, but not through Ohel ("Daiyo la'Vo Min ha'Din...")! The Rishonim are forced to answer that according to this Gemara, Rebbi Akiva's reasoning for requiring a Nazir to be Megale'ach for Revi'is Dam is not actually based on the Kal v'Chomer that he expresses, but on a tradition (Kabalah) that he received of a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai to that effect. He only said the Kal v'Chomer in order to persuade the Chachamim (who did not have this Kabalah) to agree with him.

(b) The RA'AVAD (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 3:3) presents a surprising ruling. The Ra'avad writes that although a Revi'is of Dam does not require a Nazir to shave if he touches or carries it, nevertheless if he enters an Ohel in which there is a Revi'is Dam he *does* have to shave! That is, Revi'is Dam is Metamei a Nazir through Ohel, but *not* through Maga or Masa! His reasoning is that a Revi'is Dam is called "Nefesh Mes" (in that a Revi'is of Dam is considered Dam ha'Nefesh; see Tosfos 38a, DH Al Kol). When the Torah commands the Nazir, "Al Nefesh Mes Lo Yavo" (Bamidbar 6:6), the Torah is including the Isur of becoming Tamei with a Revi'is Dam in the Isurim of Nazir. The Isur of "Lo Yavo," though, refers only to Tum'as Ohel (as the Gemara states on 42b). Therefore, a Nazir is only Megale'ach for Tum'as Ohel of Revi'is Dam, and not for Maga and Masa of Revi'is Dam.

Our Gemara seems to be a perfect source for the ruling of the Ra'avad. Our Gemara says that the Mishnah in Ohalos counts all of the items that will make a Nazir become Tamei through Tum'as Ohel requiring him to shave, and Revi'is Dam is one of those cases! Our Mishnah here leaves it out because the Mishnah is presenting a list of Tum'os for which a Nazir is Megale'ach for all forms of becoming Tamei -- through Maga, Masa, and Ohel.

The Mishnah later (54a) lists the Tum'os for which a Nazir is *not* Megale'ach. It mentions that he is not Megale'ach for the Tum'ah of Revi'is Dam, and it says that he is not Megale'ach for the Tum'as Ohel of Rova Atzamos. According to the Ra'avad, this means that even though Tum'as Ohel of Revi'is Dam causes the Nazir to be Megale'ach, a Tum'as Ohel of Rova Atzamos does not cause him to be Megale'ach.

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Eduyos (1:7) in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel seem to argue about the details of the Shi'ur of a Rova Kav of bones. Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel require that two conditions be met in order for a Rova of bones to be Metamei b'Ohel. Beis Shamai says that a Rova of bones must be "Min ha'Atzamim" ("from the bones"), "from two or from three." Beis Hillel says that the Rova must be "Min ha'Geviyah" ("from the body"), and "from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan", from most of the build of the person ("Rov Binyan") or from most of the bones of the person ("Rov Minyan"). Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa comments on this Mishnah and says that it is possible that both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that the Rova must come from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan.

What are these two conditions that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel mention in the Mishnah?

(a) TOSFOS and many Rishonim explain that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not require two conditions, but are only mentioning one condition. Beis Shamai says that the Rova comes "from the bones" and then he adds, as an explanation for what he means, that it suffices for the Rova to come from just two or three bones.

Similarly, Beis Hillel says that the Rova must come from the Geviyah, from a representative part of the body, and then Beis Hillel *explains* that this means either Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan. Beis Shamai is emphasizing that the minimum amount of a Rova is only two or three bones. Beis Hillel is emphasizing that if the bones are not from Rov Binyan, then they must come from a large number of bones (i.e. "Geviyah" or "Rov Minyan," a representative part of the body) in order to be Metamei.

What, though, does Beis Hillel mean when he says that the Rova must be comprised of bones from "Rov Minyan?" Any bone in the Rova could be considered to be from Rov Minyan if another 124 bones of the body are added to it!

Tosfos (49b, DH v'Al) writes that the bones in the Rova must consist of at least *one piece* from *at least 125 different bones* (or at least one piece from each of the large bones that define the Binyan of the body). That is, the Rova must actually contain the Rov Minyan of bones by containing a piece from each of the 125 bones.

(When Rebbi Yehoshua says that according to Beis Hillel, a Rova from Rov Minyan is Metamei "when it comes from the fingers," he is not describing a requirement of the Rova of bones (since the Rova could even be from large bones that are broken into pieces, and it does not have to be from the fingers). Rather, he is simply giving a case in which there can be a Rov Minyan of bones without having Rov Binyan. Accordingly, this statement of Rebbi Yehoshua is not really relevant to the laws of Rova, but rather to the understanding of Rov Minyan.)

(b) The RA'AVAD (in Eduyos) explains that, indeed, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel each have two conditions for the Rova to be Metamei. The first condition is -- like the Gemara mentions -- that it must come from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan. They both agree about this requirement. They argue, though, about the second condition. Beis Shamai says that the Rova could come "Min ha'Atzamim," meaning from any bones as long as those bones contain a representation (a piece of each bone) from either Rov Minyan or Rov Binyan. Beis Hillel argues and says that all of the bones in the Rova must be from the Geviyah, meaning from the main part of the body, which includes the bones from the Yerech up until the shoulders. It does not include the bones of the Shok (lower leg) and below, nor the bones of the arms and below (hands, fingers). Those bones are not part of the Geviyah and they cannot join to make a Rova.

According to this explanation, what does the Gemara mean when it says that a Rova "from the fingers" can add up to a Rova from a Rov Minyan? The Ra'avad explains the statement of the Gemara in an entirely different manner. He says that the Gemara is explaining *why* Beis Hillel requires the Rova to be comprised of bones from the Geviyah. The Gemara says that since fingers and toes are not vital parts of the body, they are not called "Etzem Adam" even if there is a Rova of them. The Gemara brings proof to its assertion that they are not vital from the fact that "Ho'il v'Yeshnan *Mefurakei* Yadayim v'Raglayim" -- "since there are people who have had the hands and feet [and digits of the fingers] *removed*" and still live. (See also MEFARESH 51a, DH Min ha'Ekev.)

(c) The RAMBAM in Eduyos and the RASH in Ohalos (2:1) explain that Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai are arguing about two points. First, Beis Hillel says that the Rova must come from a Geviyah, meaning from a single person. Beis Shamai says that it may come from "two or three" meaning two or three *people* (and not two or three bones).

Second, Beis Shamai says that the Rova could come from any single bone or group of bones. Beis Hillel argues and says that the Rova must come from at least two bones. The words "from Rov Binyan or from Rov Minyan" do not mean that the Rova must come from bones that are from Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan, but rather it means that the Rova that is Metamei is made up of bones that do *not* comprise Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan in and of themselves. If they would comprise a Rov Binyan or Rov Minyan, then they would be Metamei even if they were less than a Rova.

How does the Rambam understand our Gemara which implies that, first, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree about one condition, and, second, that the bones of the Rova actually come from bones of Rov Binyan, and, third, that Beis Shamai is referring to two or three *bones* and not two or three *bodies*? The commentators explain that the Rambam is not ruling like Rebbi Yehoshua. Rebbi Yehoshua explains the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel differently and the Rambam does not rule like him. The Rambam rules this way (in Hilchos Tum'as Mes) when he writes that a Rova is Metamei if it is made up of at least two different bones from a single person (like Beis Hillel). (In PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS as printed in the Mishnayos to Ohalos 2:1, the Rambam alludes to an entirely different interpretation of "Rova Atzamos." However, in the version (Mahadura Basra) of Perush ha'Mishnayos printed by Kapach, the Rambam explains there the same way that he explains in Eduyos.)