Swapping Air and Ground
In yesterday’s daf, Nazir (19b)-20a, there’s an interesting variant brought to our attention by Tosafot and the Rosh. The gemara as we have it reads:
קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר בַּתְּחִלָּה. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים מִשּׁוּם גּוּשָׁהּ גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ,
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning. The Gemara suggests a possible explanation of their dispute: Let us say that they disagree about this, that Beit Shammai hold that when the Sages declared that the land of the nations outside of Eretz Yisrael is impure, they decreed so with regard to its earth. In other words, they decreed that only the earth of the land of the nations is impure, but its airspace remains pure. If so, it is not a severe level of ritual impurity, and one who observed a vow of naziriteship outside of Eretz Yisrael is not considered to be impure to the extent that he would be required to start his naziriteship afresh once entering Eretz Yisrael,
וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: מִשּׁוּם אַוֵּירָא גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִשּׁוּם גּוּשָׁהּ גָּזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי בִּסְתָם נְזִירוּת קָנֵיסְנָא, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: כִּי קָנֵיסְנָא — בִּתְחִילַּת נְזִירוּת.
and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace, and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, it may be that everyone agrees that they decreed only with regard to its earth, and they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. Beit Shammai hold that we penalize him with an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days, and Beit Hillel hold that when we penalize, we require him to return to the beginning of his term of naziriteship, and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.
The underlying theory of the hava amina is relatively straightforward. Since “ground” but not “air” is more lenient, its proponents (Bet Shammai) would be similarly lenient regarding the makeup period when entering the land of Israel, namely the 30 day minimum. And since “air” is ground plus air and is more stringent, its proponents (Bet Hillel) would be similarly stringent regarding the makeup period, namely repeating the entirety.
(The stakes of attributing one position to Bet Hillel is perhaps what we say elsewhere in Gittin 8b in the dispute between Rabbi and his contemporary Rabbi Yehuda beRabbi Yossi regarding entering the land outside Israel in a chest.)
But both the Rosh, and Tosafot (who cite both possibilities), invert the attributions. From Point by Point Summary of Tosafot, here is the explanation:
TOSFOS DH LEIMA B'HA KA'MIPALGEI D'BEIS SHAMAI SAVREI...
תוספות ד"ה לימא בהא קמיפלגי דב"ש סברי...
(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that the correct version of the text is the opposite of what is stated..)
אית ספרים דגרסי הכי דב"ש סברי ארץ העמים משום גושא גזרו עליה ולא על אוירא ומותר ליכנס בה בשידה תיבה ומגדל
(a) Alternate text: Some texts say "Beis Shamai hold that they decreed on Chutz la'Aretz due to the soil, but not on the air, and one may enter it in a chest, box or tower [and remain Tahor];
וב"ה סברי אפילו על אוירא גזרו ומש"ה החמירו לסתור הכל
Beis Hillel hold that they decreed even on the air." Therefore, they were stringent to cancel everything.
וקשה לגירסא זו דמאי טעמא דב"ש דנהי דלא גזרו כי אם משום גושא מ"מ לסתור הכל מידי דהוה אבית הקברות דאינו מטמא באויר ואפ"ה סותר הכל
(b) Objection: What is the reason for Beis Shamai? Granted, they decreed only due to the soil. In any case, he should cancel everything, just like a cemetery! Its air is not Tamei, and even so it cancels everything! (Sidrei Taharah - this is like below (54b), that "due to the soil" means for touching or Ohel (towering) above the ground, and "on the air" means even if he does not touch or tower above the ground, e.g. an Ohel interrupts. Shabbos (15b) connotes that "due to the soil" means touching the ground, and "on the air" means Tum'as Ohel. Based on this, Chutz la'Aretz is more lenient than a cemetery, and Tosfos has no question.)
לכן נראה דגרסינן איפכא ב"ש סברי משום אוירא גזרו והחמירו בארץ העמים וב"ה סברי משום גושא גזרו
(c) Conclusion: The text says oppositely. Beis Shamai hold that they decreed due to the air, and they were stringent about Chutz la'Aretz. Beis Hillel hold that they decreed due to the soil.
וא"ת והשתא נמי מאי טעמא דב"ש אטו משום דהחמירו בה יותר מקבר לא יסתור אלא ל'
(d) Question: Also now, what is Beis Shamai's reason? Because they were more stringent [about Chutz la'Aretz] than a grave, is that a reason to cancel only 30?!
וי"ל דאין הכי נמי דכיון דהחמירו בה לגזור על אוירא גלוי לכל דאותה טומאה אינה אלא מדרבנן ולכך סגי לן דיסתור שלשים יום דלא מיחלפא בטומאה דאורייתא
(e) Answer: Indeed, it is! Since they were stringent to decree about the air, it is clear to all that the Tum'ah is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, it suffices to cancels 30 days, for it is not confused with Tum'ah mid'Oraisa.
וב"ה סברי משום גושא גזרו וכיון דדינה כקבר צריך שיסתור הכל ומשום דמיחלפא ארץ העמים בקברות
(f) Explanation: Beis Hillel hold that they decreed due to the soil. Since its law is like a grave, he must cancel everything, for Chutz la'Aretz is confused with graves.וכענין סברא זו איכא בפ' כהן גדול (לקמן דף נד:) דקאמר אי משום אוירא ל"ל הזאה
(g) Support: We find like this below (54b). It says "if they decreed due to the air, why is Haza'ah (of Mei Chatas) needed?"
אבל אי משום גושא ניחא דטעמא דהזאה כשאר טומאות
1. Inference: If they decreed due to the soil, this is fine. Haza'ah is needed, like for other Tum'os.ולפ"ז ה"ג לא דכ"ע משום אוירא גזרו ולכך ניחא לב"ש דלא קניס אלא ל' יום
(h) Consequence: The text says "no. All agree that they decreed on the air." Therefore it is fine that Beis Shamai decree only 30 days;
וב"ה סברי אע"ג דגלוי לכל דטומאה דרבנן הוא ואינה כשאר אהל קנסינן ליה בתחילת נזירות ובקנסא הוא דפליגי.
1. Beis Hillel hold that even though it is clear to all that the Tum'ah is mid'Rabanan, and it is unlike other [Tum'as] Ohel, we fine him [to return] to the beginning of Nezirus. They argue about the fine.
That is, the whole tumah is rabbinic, so where they decree (in the hava amina) even on the air, stringently, something not true of real tumah, is becomes obvious that it isn’t Biblical, so they can be lenient regarding the makeup period when entering Israel.
Do we have any such manuscripts with the reversed words? While printings Vatican 110 have as above, we have Munich 95 with the reverse!
Tosafot then also reverse the דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא at the end, to refer to air rather than earth. Look carefully at Munich 95 and you will see that difference as well. (Of course, Munich 95 is from 1342, likely France, so we can decide if it preceded or followed Tosafot. Is this an existing competing text, or are they following Tosafot’s conjectural emendation?)