R. Eliezer said in the name of R. Yehoshua: With every dead-body uncleanliness for which a Nazirite shaves, there is liability for entering the sanctuary. [If he incurred that uncleanliness and entered the sanctuary, or if he ate of the offerings before he cleansed himself of his uncleanliness, he is liable to kareth if he sinned wittingly.] And with every dead-body uncleanliness for which a Nazirite does not shave, there is no liability for entering the sanctuary. R. Meir said: This (the above) should not be less stringent than sheretz ("creeping thing" uncleanliness)! [for which there is liability for entering the sanctuary, viz. (Leviticus 5:2): "…or the dead body of an unclean creeping thing." (R. Meir's argument does not stand. For a Nazirite shaves for touching or carrying a bone the size of a barley-corn, which is of lesser stringency, not causing tent-uncleanliness, as we learned in our Mishnah (7:3), yet he does not shave for a revi'ith of blood, which is of greater stringency, causing tent-uncleanliness.] R. Akiva said: "I reasoned thus before R. Eliezer: Now if a Nazirite shaves for carrying or touching a bone the size of a barley-corn, which does not cause tent-uncleanliness, should he not shave for touching or carrying a revi'ith of blood, which does not cause tent-uncleanliness! He said to me: What is this, Akiva, we cannot reason a fortiori here! [An a fortiori argument cannot be based on a halachah to Moses from Sinai. For (the halachah of) "a bone the size of a barley-corn" is not written in the Torah, but is a halachah to Moses from Sinai, and it cannot be the basis for an a fortiori argument.] And when I came and repeated this to R. Yehoshua, he said to me: You said well, but they stated thus as a halachah (to Moses from Sinai). [The words of R. Yehoshua are essentially the same as those of R. Eliezer.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Introduction
The first section of our mishnah contains a discussion related to the categories of impurity explained in the previous two mishnayoth.
The second section contains a debate over whether a quarter-log of blood forces the nazirite to shave. This section contains an interesting insight into the tension between two primary sources of halakhah: tradition and logical reasoning.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Elazar correlates the two categories of corpse defilement explained in the previous mishnah to another halakhah, that of entering the sanctuary while defiled, punishable by kareth if done intentionally or a sacrifice if done unintentionally. According to Rabbi Elazar, those categories of defilement for which a nazirite does not shave, a person is also not liable for entering the sanctuary while defiled by them. Rabbi Meir argues that defilement contracted through these things for which a nazirite does not shave should not be considered less serious than defilement contracted by contact with a dead creeping thing. Since a person who enters the sanctuary after contracting defilement from a dead creeping thing is liable (see Leviticus 5:2), so too is one who contracted defilement from one of the impurities in mishnah three above.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nazir
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nazir
Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.” This section deals with the teaching in mishnah three, according to which a nazirite who was defiled by contact with a quarter-log of blood does not have to shave. Rabbi Akiva argues against this position in front of Rabbi Eliezer, one of his teachers. Rabbi Akiva’s argument is based on the precedent of a barley corn’s bulk of bone. Such a small piece of bone does not defile through overshadowing, and yet nevertheless a nazirite who comes into contact with it or carries it must shave, bring a sacrifice and begin counting his naziriteship. If so, a quarter-log of blood, which does defile through overshadowing should all the more so make a nazirite shave, bring a sacrifice and start his naziriteship over. This type of formal argumentation is called an a “kal vehomer” in Hebrew, which I translate as an “all the more so” argument. Others use the term “a fortiori”. The reasoning here is that if a lesser thing (the tiny piece of bone) carries a certain power, all the more so should the greater thing (the small amount of blood). Rabbi Eliezer responds to Rabbi Akiva by telling him that we don’t make this type of argument here. Rabbi Eliezer is known as being an arch-conservative in halakhic matters. He typically rejects reason as a source of new halakhot, relying strictly on tradition. Rabbi Joshua, on the other hand, is known more typically as the innovator, ready to modify traditions if so persuaded. However, over here, he too does not feel able to modify the halakhah that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazirite liable to shave. While he accepts Rabbi Akiva’s reason, he says that since the Sages ruled based on their traditions, this halakhah cannot be changed.
