Rav Doesn't Bother to Explain

Occasionally I encounter a gemara that I want to bookmark, because I feel it is something that could be useful for other analysis. And then, when I need it later, I fear I won’t be able to find it.

Over Shabbos, I encountered one such gemara, which serves to highlight Rav and Shmuel’s role as interpreters of the Mishnah. Just as we have e.g. Rav Ovadia miBartenura and the Rambam, for the Amoraim, it was Rav and Shmuel. There is a gemara I didn’t stash away in which an Amora (perhaps Rav Yosef) said of a Mishnah that its meaning was so self-evident that it didn’t even need the comments of Rav and Shmuel.

On Nazir 19a, first Shmuel:

יָצָא וְנִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. קָתָנֵי עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. מִשּׁוּם דְּיָצָא חָל עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל.

§ The mishna taught that if one took a vow of naziriteship while in a cemetery, left the cemetery, and then entered it again, the days he spent outside do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship, and he is obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon reentering the cemetery. The mishna teaches: They do count as part of his tally. The Gemara questions the meaning of this linkage: Does naziriteship take effect for him because he merely left the ritually impure place? He is still ritually impure, and he cannot begin counting his term of naziriteship until after he has undergone the purification process. Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where he left and received the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day, and he again received the sprinkling on the seventh day and immersed, after which he entered the cemetery a second time. Since he is now ritually pure, his naziriteship takes effect.

אֶלָּא נִכְנַס הוּא דְּעוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, לֹא נִכְנַס אֵין עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן?! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא יָצָא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נִכְנַס — עוֹלִין לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן.

The Gemara poses another question: According to the precise reading of the mishna, his term of naziriteship starts only if he reentered the cemetery; however, is it only if he returned and entered the cemetery that those days count as part of his tally, but if he did not enter, and remained outside the cemetery, those days do not count as part of his tally? Why should the start of the naziriteship be dependent upon his reentering the cemetery? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as follows: It is not necessary to state this halakha, that those days count as part of his tally, in the case of one who left the cemetery and began his naziriteship, but even if he entered the cemetery again immediately after his purification, those days count as part of his tally, and he will be obligated to bring the offerings of ritual impurity upon his reentry.

While usually I would minimize the words of Shmuel and say that he only said the first sentence above — that is, that his statement is apodictic, here I am not sure I agree with the Koren English translation that states that the continued question and answer are from the Gemara, that is, the Talmudic Narrator. (The English translation follows Rav Adin Steinsaltz, who has the gloss of ועוד שואלים and ומשיבים.) It is a continuation of an analysis of the structure and intent of the Mishnah. See also Kiddushin 46a, where both Rav and Shmuel analyze a Mishnah and say לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. So this is within the nature of their Mishnah explanation.

At any rate, Rav Kahanah (here Rav Kahanah I, the student of Rav and colleague of Rav Assi) and Rav Assi (first-generation) asked Rav why he didn’t explain it as Shmuel did.

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְפָרְשַׁתְּ לַן כְּהָלֵין מִילֵּי? אָמַר לְהוֹן: אָמֵינָא דִּלְמָא לָא צְרִיכִיתוּ.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: What is the reason you did not explain it to us with these words of Shmuel, as explained above? He said to them: I said to myself that perhaps you do not require that explanation, as I thought it was apparent that this is the proper explanation of the mishna.

This might set Rav up as the more minimal generally in his explanations. And also, just because Shmuel explains something and Rav does not, that doesn’t mean that Rav necessarily disagrees.

Anyway, I parked this here. I expect I’m going to refer to this post in about a week, when I discuss Reish Lakish’s statement (in tomorrow’s daf Nazir 20b) about an utterance-span.