ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 53
(a) We refute the assumption that, if Shamai says 'Etzem Echad min Shedrah O
min Gulgoles', the Rabbanan will require only a quarter Kav of bones from
the spinal cord and the skull - on the grounds that it is only Shamai who
takes a stringent line in this issue, but the Rabbanan, who reject the
stringency of one bone, also reject that of a quarter Kav of bones.
(b) Neither can we assume that the Rabbanan, who did not express in any way
that they are Machmir (like Shamai did), must give the Shiur as a half a Kav
(and not a quarter) - perhaps they only disagree with Shamai's Chumra of one
bone, but they concede the next stage of Chumra to require a Nazir who
touches a Revi'is of bones from a Shedrah and Gulgoles to shave.
(a) According to some of the Zekeinim ha'Rishonim cited by Rebbi Eliezer,
only *half* a Kav of bones and *half* a Log of blood (from a Meis) render
all Tamei, but not a *quarter*. The four cases that 'all' incorporates are -
eating Kodshim and T'rumah, requiring a Nazir to shave and eating the Korban
(b) The others Zekeinim said - all cases will be Tamei already for a Rova
ha'Kav and a Revi'is of blood.
(c) The first group of Zekeinim disagree with the Mishnah in Ohalos, the
second group, with our Mishnah.
1. The first group argue with the Mishnah in Ohalos - where the Tana
requires only a quarter Kav of bones and a quarter Log of blood to render
Tamei for Kodshim and T'rumah.
(d) According to Beis-Din shel Achareihem - Rova Atzamos and Revi'is Dam
render Tamei for Kodshim and T'rumah, but not for Nazir and Oseh Pesach
(until there is a Chatzi-Kav and a Chatzi- Revi'is).
2. The second group argue with our Mishnah - which requires at least half a
Kav of bones and half a Log of blood for a Nazir to have to shave.
(a) The Beis-Din shel Achareihem are a Hachra'ah Shelishis - a third opinion
which compromises between the first two opinions (According to others, it is
the opinion of Talmidim who argue with their Rebbes).
(b) The Halachah might be like the Machri'a - when the original disputants
indicated that there was room for compromise, and the third opinion took up
the challenge (so to speak), and made it.
(c) Despite the fact that this is not the case here, and following the
principle 'Ein Hachra'ah ke'Da'as Shelishis', Rebbi nevertheless inserted
the opinion of the Beis-Din shel Achareihem in the Mishnah here and in
Ohalos - because, as Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi explained, their opinion is based
on the words of Chagi, Zecharyah and Malachi.
(a) Our Mishnah said twice 'Al Eilu ha'Nazir Megale'ach'. The first of these
is to preclude a bone the size of a barley; the second, to preclude Even
ha'Sechuchis - a stone-fence which has stones jutting out from it,
underneath one of which a Meis is lying. A Nazir who walks under one of the
stones and he doesn't know whether that was the stone with the Meis
underneath it, does not need to shave.
(b) It doesn't matter that both of these cases appear explicitly in the
Mishnah, since the Tana does tend to make a general statement and then go on
to explain it.
(a) The problem that we have with our Mishnah, which gives the Shiur of
bones as half a Kav (but not a quarter) is - that if the bones are the size
of a barley, why is he not Chayav for each bone?
(b) Despite the fact that a Nazir is not obligated to shave for Tum'as Ohel
on a bone the size of a barley, whereas for the Shiur of half a Kav he is,
there is a problem, inasmuch as it will soon become clear that the Chidush
of the Reisha is (not that he is Patur for being Ma'ahil on it, but) that he
is Chayav for touching or moving it (Tosfos).
(c) We answer the initial Kashya (explaining why the Tana needs to insert
the case of Chatzi Kav Atzamos) - by bones that were ground to dust (in
which case a bone the size of a barley is not Metamei).
(a) Our Mishnah also states the case 've'al Eiver min ha'Meis ve'al Eiver
min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy'. The difference between whether
the bone contains the correct amount of flesh or not is - that when it does,
it is Metamei be'Ohel, but not when it does not.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan infers from the Reisha 'al Eiver min ha'Meis ve'al Eiver
min ha'Chai she'Yesh Aleihen Basar ka'Ra'uy' - that if the bone does not
contain the required amount of flesh, the Nazir does not shave even if he
touches or moves it.
(c) Resh Lakish extrapolates that he *does* from the Seifa - since the Tana
does not include him among the cases where the Nazir does not shave.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan counters Resh Lakish's proof - by presenting the
principle that whatever can be inferred from the Reisha, will not be
repeated in the Seifa.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, even though the Tana includes half a Kav of
bones in the Reisha (from which we can extrapolate that a Nazir does not
shave for a quarter of a Kav), the Tana nevertheless chose to tell us so
specifically in the Seifa - to confine the exclusion of a quarter Kav of
bones to Tum'as Ohel, in which case the main purpose of the Reisha is to
teach us that it is Metamei by means of touching and moving.
(b) And the Tana chooses to inform us in the Seifa that a Nazir does not
shave for a quarter Log of blood, even though we can infer it from the
Reisha, which gives the Shiur as half a Log - to teach us that even through
touching and carrying, a Nazir does not shave (to preclude from the opinion
of Rebbi Akiva, who says that he does).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah cannot be speaking when the bone is the size of
a barley - because then why would Rebbi Yochanan exempt a Nazir from shaving
after touching or moving it?
(b) If on the other hand, the Tana is speaking when it is less than the size
of a barley, Resh Lakish's reason is - due to a 'G'zeiras ha'Kasuv', as we
shall soon see.
(c) The Tana learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with Tum'as Ohel)
1. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yiga *al-P'nei* ha'Sadeh" - Tum'as Ohel (because
"al-P'nei" implies that he did not actually touch the Meis, but was only
Ma'ahil over it).
(d) The ramifications of the D'rashah 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal' are -
that that metal vessel becomes an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah to render whoever
touches it or who is under the same Ohel as it, Tamei for seven days
2. ... "ba'Chalal" - that a limb that was cut from a living person that
contains sufficient flesh for it to heal and re-grow is Metamei like a Meis.
3. ... "ba'Chalal-Cherev" - that 'Cherev, Harei Hu ke'Chalal' (any metal
vessel that touched a sword has the Din of the Meis that it touched - see
(a) "O be'Meis", 'Zeh Eiver ha'Nechlal min ha'Meis' - includes a limb that
is cut from a corpse (to teach us that not only a complete corpse is
(b) "O be'Etzem Adam O be'Kaver". "O be'Etzem Adam" 'Zeh Rova Atzamos'. From
"O be'Kaver" the Tana learns - that the entire grave is Metamei like the
Meis, provided there is no space of a Tefach between the Meis and the roof
of the grave.
(c) 'Tum'ah Boka'as ve'Olah' means - that when there *is* a space of a
Tefach between the Meis and the roof of the grave, the Tum'ah of the Meis
goes directly upwards without filling the entire grave with Tum'ah.
(d) The Tana cites it here - to bring the Halachah into the Sugya, even
though it does belong to our case.