Can we say [that the controversy about the air of a foreign country] is the same as that between the following Tannaim? [It has been taught:] If a person enters a foreign country in a box, or a chest, or a portable turret, Rabbi declares him unclean, while R. Jose son of R. Judah declares him clean. Is not this because Rabbi holds that [the uncleanness of the lands of the Gentiles]1 is because of the air2 and R. Jose son of R. Judah holds that it is because of the soil?3 — No. Both would agree that [foreign countries defile] because of the soil. The latter, however, holds that a tent in motion is still counted a tent,4 whilst the former holds that a tent in motion does not constitute a tent.5 But have we not been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah says that if a chest is full of utensils and someone throws it in front of a corpse in a tent, it becomes unclean,6 whilst if it were there already [in the tent], it remains clean?7 — It must therefore be that both [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah agree that foreign countries defile] because of the air. The latter holds that since [travelling in a chest] is not common the Rabbis did not intend the enactment to apply [to such a case].8 whilst the former holds that although it is unusual, the Rabbis intended the enactment to apply to it. It has been taught to the same effect:9 A person who enters a foreign country in a box, or a chest, or a portable turret remains clean, whilst [if he enters] in a carriage. or a boat, or a ship with a mast,10 he becomes unclean.11
Alternatively,12 [Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah] may dis agree here on the question [whether a man travelling in a chest was declared unclean] for fear lest he put out his bead or the greater part of his [body].13 It has been taught to this effect. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, a person who enters a foreign country in a box, or a chest, or a portable turret is clean until he puts out his head or the greater part of his [body].
BUT HE COMMENCES TO RESUME COUNTING [IMMEDIATELY etc.]: R. Hisda said: It was taught [that the days of declared leprosy are not counted] only in the case of a short naziriteship,14 but in the case of a long naziriteship15 they also help to discharge [the days of his naziriteship]. R. Sherabya objected: HE COMMENCES TO RESUME COUNTING IMMEDIATELY AND DOES NOT ANNUL THE PREVIOUS PERIOD.16 What are the circumstances? For if it is speaking of a short naziriteship, he requires [thirty days] growth of hair,17
Nazir 55band so it surely refers to a long naziriteship, and yet it teaches that HE COMMENCES TO COUNT IMMEDIATELY? — [R. Sherabya] put the question and answered it himself. [The Mishnah is speaking] of a naziriteship of, say, fifty days, of which he had observed twenty [days] when he became leprous. He must then poll for his leprosy [when he is healed] and observe a further thirty days of the nazirite [obligation], in which case he has a [thirty days] growth of hair.1
- To Next Folio -