Just as the days of his confirmed leprosy require shaving, so too, the days of his counting require shaving; and just as the days of his confirmed leprosy do not count as part of his tally of naziriteship, so too, the days of his counting should not count toward his term of naziriteship?

One might have thought that even his days of quarantine as a leper should share the same halakha and not be counted. And it is logical that those days should not count for him either, as the two states are comparable: A confirmed leper renders items ritually impure through lying or sitting, and a leper in the days of his quarantine also renders items impure through lying or sitting. Consequently, if you learned with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy that they do not count as part of his tally, so too, the days of quarantine should not count as part of his tally either.

The Gemara rejects this argument: You can say in response: No, if you said this halakha with regard to the days of confirmed leprosy, the reason is that his confirmed state of leprosy requires him to shave after he is healed and to bring an offering before he can commence his naziriteship. Therefore, these days do not count toward his naziriteship. However, will you say the same with regard to the days of his quarantine, which do not require shaving and for which he does not bring an offering? Therefore, perhaps they should count toward his tally.

From here they stated: The days of a leper’s counting and the days of his confirmed leprosy, when he is a full-fledged leper, do not count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship. However, the days of the impurity of the zav and the zava and the days of a leper’s quarantine do count as part of his tally of his term of naziriteship.

With regard to the issue at hand, in any event the baraita teaches: No, if you say that this is true with regard to his days of impurity, which negate the previous days, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to his days of confirmed leprosy, which do not negate the previous ones? The Gemara analyzes this argument: To what does this statement refer? If we say it is referring to a short naziriteship of thirty days, this cannot be the case, as we require hair growth of thirty days after his purification.

Rather, is it not the case that it is referring to a lengthy naziriteship, and nevertheless the baraita teaches that they do not count as part of his tally. Apparently, his days as a full-fledged leper do not count toward his term of naziriteship, which contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that Rav Ḥisda’s opinion should be rejected.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting that impurity. If someone who became impure from one of those sources of impurity enters the Temple, he violates the prohibition against an impure individual entering the sacred space. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is likewise not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it.

Rabbi Meir said: This impurity from a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal. The Torah clearly states that one rendered impure from a creeping animal is prohibited from entering the Temple (see Leviticus 5:2–3).

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Eliezer learn this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya? But didn’t he learn it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: When I went to a place called Ardaskeya, I found Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petter Rosh sitting and discussing the following halakha before Rabbi Meir: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. Rabbi Meir said to him: This impurity of a corpse that does not obligate a nazirite to shave should not be more lenient than the impurity of a creeping animal.

Rabbi Eliezer continued: I said to Rabbi Meir: Are you at all familiar with Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel? He said to me: Yes. I continued: Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel said this to me in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: With regard to any ritual impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite must shave, one is liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. And with regard to any impurity from a corpse for which a nazirite does not shave, one is not liable due to the prohibition of entering the Temple after contracting it. This concludes the baraita. The Gemara comments: This is proof that Rabbi Eliezer learned this halakha in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, not directly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya.

They said: Learn from this case the following principle: With regard to any statement of halakha that was stated as a tradition of three scholars, we say the first and the last names in the chain but we do not say the middle one. Therefore, the mishna mentions the name of Rabbi Eliezer, the last link in the tradition, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya, the first scholar, but it omits that of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Memel, the middle scholar in the chain.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, too, learn in a mishna (Pe’a 2:6): Naḥum the Scribe [lavlar] said: This is the tradition that I received from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from father, who received it from the pairs of Sages who served during the period of the Second Temple, who received it from the Prophets: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai with regard to one who sows the plants of dill and mustard in two or three separate locations in a single field, that he leaves a corner to the poor for each and every one of these plots on its own, rather than one corner for all of them.

The Gemara explains the proof from this source: And yet Naḥum the Scribe does not mention the names of Joshua and Caleb, despite the fact that they were the Elders who passed down this halakha from Moses to the Prophets. Learn from this that the middle links in a tradition are not necessarily listed.

MISHNA: The mishna continues to address the sources of ritual impurity for which a nazirite must shave. Rabbi Akiva said: I discussed this matter before Rabbi Eliezer and suggested the following a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk, which does not render a person impure in a tent, a nazirite must nevertheless shave for touching it or carrying it, then in the case of a quarter-log of blood, which is more stringent in that it renders a person impure in a tent, is it not logical that a nazirite should shave for touching it or carrying it?

Rabbi Eliezer said to me: What is this, Akiva? One cannot argue by means of an a fortiori inference here, in this particular case. However, Rabbi Eliezer did not provide a reason for this response. Rabbi Akiva continued: And when I came and presented these matters before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to me: You spoke well, i.e., your logic is flawless, but they indeed said that this is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, which cannot be refuted by means of an a fortiori inference.