- Challenging Rav Chisda from a Baraisa of a nazir who is a metzora
After successfully challenging Rav Chisda’s ruling (that the days of a metzora can count towards a lengthy nezirus), Rav Ashi poses another challenge from a Baraisa which derives that a confirmed metzora’s days do not count towards his nezirus: ומה נזיר בקבר ששערו ראוי לתגלחת נזירות – If a nazir who declared [nezirus] in a cemetery, whose hair is fit for shaving at the end of his nezirus (because he does not shave for his tumah), אין עולין לו מן המנין – yet those days do not count for him, ימי חלוטו שאין שערו ראוי לתגלחת נזירות לא כל שכן – then confirmed days of a metzora, whose hair is not fit for shaving at the end of his nezirus (since he must shave for his tzaraas), is it not certainly so? The same applies to the “counting days” of a metzora (between his first and second shaving), but not to ימי הסגרו – his days of confinement, which do not require shaving. Since the Baraisa states that his previous days are not forfeited, it must be discussing a lengthy nezirus (of more than thirty days remaining), yet his days of tzaraas are not counted, which contradicts Rav Chisda’s ruling on the previous Daf.
- Any teaching from a long line of sources, we say the first and last sources, not intermediate names
The next Mishnah states: Rebbe Eliezer said in the name of Rebbe Yehoshua: כל טומאה מן המת שנזיר מגלח עליה – Any tumah [from a corpse] for which a nazir would shave, חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש – one is liable on its account for entering the Mikdash. וכל טומאה מן המת שאין הנזיר מגלח עליה – And any tumah for which a nazir would not shave, אין חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש – one is not liable on its account for entering the Mikdash. Rebbe Meir protested: לא תהא זו קלה מן השרץ – Such tumah should not be more lenient than a sheretz, for which a nazir does not shave, yet one is liable for entering the Mikdash when tamei from it. The Gemara wonders why Rebbe Eliezer directly quotes Rebbe Yehoshua (ben Chananya), since a Baraisa quotes it from Rebbe Yehoshua bar Mamal in the name of Rebbe Yehoshua (ben Chananya). The Gemara concludes: שמע מינה כל שמעתתא דמתאמרה בבי תלתא – Learn from this that any teaching stated successively by three or more teachers, קדמאי ובתראי אמרינן, מציעאי לא אמרינן – we say the first and the last sources, but we do not say the intermediate names. The Gemara provides another example of this principle.
- Rebbe Akiva’s attempt to derive from a kal vachomer that a reviis of blood requires a nazir to shave
The next Mishnah states: Rebbe Akiva related that he argued before Rebbe Eliezer:מה אם עצם כשעורה שאינו מטמא אדם באהל – If for a bone the size of barley, which is not metamei with ohel, הנזיר מגלח על מגעו ועל משאו – yet a nazir shaves based on touching or carrying it, רביעית דם שהוא מטמא אדם באהל – then a reviis of blood, which is metamei with ohel, אינו דין שיהא הנזיר מגלח על מגעה ועל משאה – does it not follow that a nazir should shave for touching or carrying it? Rebbe Eliezer responded: מה זה, עקיבא, אין דנין כאן מקל וחומר – “What is this, Akiva? We cannot reason here from a kal vachomer.” When he presented his argument before Rebbe Yehoshua, he responded: יפה אמרת, אלא כן אמרו הלכה – “You have spoken well; however, this is how the halachah was said to Moshe at Sinai.” The Gemara on the next Daf explains that since the requirement for a nazir to shave based on bone-tumah was taught as a halachah leMoshe miSinai, other applications cannot be derived from it, even through a kal vachomer.
