Nazir

GEMARA. The question was propounded: Was it [the law concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone  that was a halachah and that of the quarter [-log] of blood [that was being derived] by argument, and [this is what is meant by saying that] an argument from the lesser to the greater is not permitted in the case of a halachah?  Or, was it [the law concerning] a quarter [-log] of blood  that was a halachah, while [the law concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone [was simply used] for the argument, and [this is what is meant by] saying that an argument from the lesser to the greater is not permitted in the case of a halachah?  — Come and hear: [It has been taught: The rulings concerning] a barley-corn's bulk of bone is a halachah,' [the rulings of] a quarter [-log] of blood [can be derived] by an argument; but an argument from the lesser to the greater is not permitted in the case of a halachah. MISHNAH. TWO NAZIRITES TO WHOM SOMEONE SAYS, I SAW ONE OF YOU DEFILED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU IT WAS,' MUST [BOTH] POLL  AND BRING SACRIFICES [PRESCRIBED] FOR DEFILEMENT AND SACRIFICES [DUE ON TERMINATING A NAZIRITESHIP] IN PURITY,  [AND ONE OF THEM] MUST SAY, 'IF I AM UNCLEAN, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT ARE MINE, AND THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY ARE YOURS, WHILST IF I AM THE ONE WHO IS CLEAN, THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY ARE MINE AND THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT ARE YOURS.' THEY MUST THEN COUNT THIRTY [MORE] DAYS  AND BRING SACRIFICES IN PURITY AND [ONE OF THEM] MUST SAY, IF I AM THE ONE WHO WAS UNCLEAN, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT WERE MINE, THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY WERE YOURS, AND THESE ARE MY SACRIFICES IN PURITY, WHILST IF I WAS THE ONE WHO WAS CLEAN, THE SACRIFICES IN PURITY WERE MINE, THE SACRIFICES FOR DEFILEMENT WERE YOURS, AND THESE ARE YOUR SACRIFICES IN PURITY. GEMARA. The Mishnah Says: TWO NAZIRITES TO WHOM SOMEONE SAYS, 'I SAW ONE OF YOU DEFILED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF YOU IT WAS [etc.]: Now why [is this necessary]?  For whence do we derive all [the laws concerning] doubtful defilement [arising] in a private domain?  [Is it not] from [the regulations regarding] a faithless wife?  [Whence it may be in ferred that] just as in the case of a faithless wife [only] the lover and his mistress are together,  so in every case of doubtful defilement in a private domain [the defilement is assumed to be definite] only if there were but two persons present, whereas in the present instance, the two nazirites and the one standing near  make three, so that it becomes [the same as] a case of doubtful defilement in a public domain [and the rule is:] Every case of doubtful defilement in a public domain remains clean?  — Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: [The Mishnah assumes that the third person] says, 'I saw a source of defilement thrown between you?  R. Ashi commented: This is also indicated [in the language of the Mishnah]