Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2015 | 讻状讛 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nazir 47

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讟讛专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪专讬诐 讛转专诪讜讚讬转 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讘讗讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 注诇 讘转讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗讛 砖诪转讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专

MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 住讜转专 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讜转专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says that this negates the entire tally. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say (16b): With regard to any nazirite who became ritually impure after the completion of his term, this negates only seven days. Rav said: What does: Negates, that Rabbi Eliezer said in the mishna here mean? It means that his impurity negates all his offerings. Rabbi Eliezer did not mean that the nazirite must count his entire term of naziriteship afresh; rather, he must bring all his offerings a second time, including the one whose blood was sprinkled before he became impure.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement, as the mishna later teaches: And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. Learn from here that they disagree only with regard to the offerings, but not the naziriteship itself.

讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘诪专讬诐 讛转专诪讜讚讬转 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛 注诇 讘转讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗讛 砖诪转讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

MISHNA: A High Priest and a nazirite may not become ritually impure even to bury their deceased relatives. However, they become impure to bury a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. If one of them comes across the corpse of a Jew, and there is nobody else available to bury it, he must bury the body. If a High Priest and a nazirite were walking along the way and they found a met mitzva, and one of them can tend to the burial by himself, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the High Priest become impure, and do not let the nazirite become impure. And the Rabbis say: Let the nazirite become impure, and do not let even a common priest become impure.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: It is preferable to let the priest become impure, as he does not bring an offering for his impurity, and do not let the nazirite become impure, as he brings an offering for his impurity. The Rabbis said to him: On the contrary, let the nazirite become impure, as his sanctity is not permanent, and do not let a priest become impure, as his sanctity is permanent.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讛讗讬 住讘专 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讚讬祝 讜讛讗讬 住讘专 谞讝讬专 注讚讬祝

GEMARA: In light of the mishna鈥檚 dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, the Gemara compares the status of various individuals. Granted, with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite, one can explain the dispute as follows. This Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is preferable that a High Priest remain ritually pure, as his sanctity is permanent. And this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is preferable that a nazirite remain ritually pure, as he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.

诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛

Additionally, if the two walking together were a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, as was performed during the First Temple period,

讜诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 注讚讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗

and a High Priest of many garments, i.e., one who was not anointed with oil but who was sanctified by wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, it is preferable that the one who was anointed with the anointing oil remain ritually pure. The Gemara explains: As a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot, i.e., if an anointed priest ruled erroneously with regard to a prohibition that if a Jew transgressed it he would be liable to bring a sin-offering, he brings a bull for his sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:3鈥12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.

诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 讜诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 注讚讬祝 讚诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗

In a case where a former anointed High Priest, i.e., a priest who had temporarily substituted for a High Priest, is walking together with one of many garments, it is preferable that the one who wears many garments remain ritually pure. The reason is that a High Priest of many garments still performs the service, whereas a former anointed High Priest is no longer able to perform the service.

注讘专 诪讞诪转 拽讬专讜讬讜 讜注讘专 诪讞诪转 诪讜诪讜 注讘专 诪讞诪转 拽讬专讜讬讜 注讚讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 诇诪讞专 讜讗讬诇讜 注讘专 诪讞诪转 诪讜诪讜 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

In a case where an anointed High Priest who temporarily left his role due to his seminal emission is walking with a former anointed High Priest who left his role due to his blemish, it is preferable that the former High Priest who left due to his seminal emission remain ritually pure, as this one, the High Priest who experienced an emission, is fit for the Temple service the following day, while the former anointed High Priest who left due to his blemish is no longer fit for the service at all (see Leviticus 21:16鈥24).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜住讙谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 注讚讬祝 讚讞讝讬 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住讙谉 注讚讬祝 讚讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

搂 The above cases are all easily resolved and are mentioned merely to introduce the following inquiries, for which there are no obvious answers. A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 诇住讙谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讛住讙谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 拽讜讚诐 诇住讙谉 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讬讜转讜 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 注讚讬祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转诇讜 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 住讙谉 注讚讬祝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 转拽谞讜 住讙谉 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗诐 讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 谞讻谞住 讜诪砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜

But with regard to ritual impurity, it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Sages institute a deputy for the High Priest? So that if a disqualification befalls the High Priest, his deputy can enter the Temple and serve in his stead. The deputy High Priest cannot fulfill this function if he is allowed to become ritually impure.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讻讬 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讞讚 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讘专 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 讗讬谞讜谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

The Gemara turns its attention to the halakha of the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite who are walking together and find a met mitzva, in which case one of them must become impure. However, it is evident that if each of them is walking separately, they are able, i.e., they are required, to become impure. From where are these matters derived? From where is it learned that a High Priest and a nazirite, who are prohibited from becoming impure even to bury their relatives, must nevertheless become impure to bury a met mitzva?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘专讞讜拽讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖讛讜讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇专讞讜拽讬诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇专讞讜拽讬诐 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). With regard to what bodies is the verse speaking? If it is referring to distant people, i.e., non-relatives, that halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his close family members, may not become impure to bury distant people, then with regard to a High Priest, who does not become impure even to bury close members of his family, is it not logical that he does not become impure to bury distant people? Rather, the verse is speaking of close family members, and it prohibits a High Priest from becoming impure to bury any person, even his relatives.

讜诇讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: 鈥淣or defile himself for his father or for his mother鈥 (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase 鈥渇or his father鈥 teaches: It is to bury his father that he may not become ritually impure, from which it may be inferred that he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 47

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜谞讟诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讟讛专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪专讬诐 讛转专诪讜讚讬转 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讘讗讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 注诇 讘转讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗讛 砖诪转讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专

MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住讜转专 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻诇 讗讞专 诪诇讗转 砖讘注讛 住讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 住讜转专 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讜转专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says that this negates the entire tally. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say (16b): With regard to any nazirite who became ritually impure after the completion of his term, this negates only seven days. Rav said: What does: Negates, that Rabbi Eliezer said in the mishna here mean? It means that his impurity negates all his offerings. Rabbi Eliezer did not mean that the nazirite must count his entire term of naziriteship afresh; rather, he must bring all his offerings a second time, including the one whose blood was sprinkled before he became impure.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement, as the mishna later teaches: And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. Learn from here that they disagree only with regard to the offerings, but not the naziriteship itself.

讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘诪专讬诐 讛转专诪讜讚讬转 砖谞讝专拽 注诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 讜讘讗讜 讜讛讜讚讬注讜讛 注诇 讘转讛 砖讛讬转讛 诪住讜讻谞转 讜讛诇讻讛 讜诪爪讗讛 砖诪转讛 讜讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 转讘讬讗 砖讗专 拽专讘谞讜转讬讛 讜转讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诇拽专讜讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

MISHNA: A High Priest and a nazirite may not become ritually impure even to bury their deceased relatives. However, they become impure to bury a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. If one of them comes across the corpse of a Jew, and there is nobody else available to bury it, he must bury the body. If a High Priest and a nazirite were walking along the way and they found a met mitzva, and one of them can tend to the burial by himself, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the High Priest become impure, and do not let the nazirite become impure. And the Rabbis say: Let the nazirite become impure, and do not let even a common priest become impure.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬讟诪讗 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讻讛谉 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐

Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: It is preferable to let the priest become impure, as he does not bring an offering for his impurity, and do not let the nazirite become impure, as he brings an offering for his impurity. The Rabbis said to him: On the contrary, let the nazirite become impure, as his sanctity is not permanent, and do not let a priest become impure, as his sanctity is permanent.

讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讛讗讬 住讘专 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 注讚讬祝 讜讛讗讬 住讘专 谞讝讬专 注讚讬祝

GEMARA: In light of the mishna鈥檚 dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, the Gemara compares the status of various individuals. Granted, with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite, one can explain the dispute as follows. This Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is preferable that a High Priest remain ritually pure, as his sanctity is permanent. And this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is preferable that a nazirite remain ritually pure, as he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.

诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛

Additionally, if the two walking together were a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, as was performed during the First Temple period,

讜诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 注讚讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讜讗讬诇讜 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗

and a High Priest of many garments, i.e., one who was not anointed with oil but who was sanctified by wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, it is preferable that the one who was anointed with the anointing oil remain ritually pure. The Gemara explains: As a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot, i.e., if an anointed priest ruled erroneously with regard to a prohibition that if a Jew transgressed it he would be liable to bring a sin-offering, he brings a bull for his sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:3鈥12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.

诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 讜诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 注讚讬祝 讚诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇讜 诪砖讜讞 砖注讘专 诇讗讜 讘专 注讘讜讚讛 讛讜讗

In a case where a former anointed High Priest, i.e., a priest who had temporarily substituted for a High Priest, is walking together with one of many garments, it is preferable that the one who wears many garments remain ritually pure. The reason is that a High Priest of many garments still performs the service, whereas a former anointed High Priest is no longer able to perform the service.

注讘专 诪讞诪转 拽讬专讜讬讜 讜注讘专 诪讞诪转 诪讜诪讜 注讘专 诪讞诪转 拽讬专讜讬讜 注讚讬祝 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讗讬 讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 诇诪讞专 讜讗讬诇讜 注讘专 诪讞诪转 诪讜诪讜 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

In a case where an anointed High Priest who temporarily left his role due to his seminal emission is walking with a former anointed High Priest who left his role due to his blemish, it is preferable that the former High Priest who left due to his seminal emission remain ritually pure, as this one, the High Priest who experienced an emission, is fit for the Temple service the following day, while the former anointed High Priest who left due to his blemish is no longer fit for the service at all (see Leviticus 21:16鈥24).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜住讙谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 注讚讬祝 讚讞讝讬 诇诪诇讞诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住讙谉 注讚讬祝 讚讞讝讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

搂 The above cases are all easily resolved and are mentioned merely to introduce the following inquiries, for which there are no obvious answers. A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 诇住讙谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘讚专讱 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讬讟诪讗 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗 讛住讙谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 拽讜讚诐 诇住讙谉 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讬讜转讜 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 注讚讬祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转诇讜 讘讬讛 专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.

讜诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 住讙谉 注讚讬祝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 转拽谞讜 住讙谉 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗诐 讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讛专讬 谞讻谞住 讜诪砖诪砖 转讞转讬讜

But with regard to ritual impurity, it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Sages institute a deputy for the High Priest? So that if a disqualification befalls the High Priest, his deputy can enter the Temple and serve in his stead. The deputy High Priest cannot fulfill this function if he is allowed to become ritually impure.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 讻讬 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 讞讚 讞讚 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讘专 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 讗讬谞讜谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

The Gemara turns its attention to the halakha of the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite who are walking together and find a met mitzva, in which case one of them must become impure. However, it is evident that if each of them is walking separately, they are able, i.e., they are required, to become impure. From where are these matters derived? From where is it learned that a High Priest and a nazirite, who are prohibited from becoming impure even to bury their relatives, must nevertheless become impure to bury a met mitzva?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 谞驻砖讜转 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘专讞讜拽讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖讛讜讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇专讞讜拽讬诐 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇专讞讜拽讬诐 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: 鈥淣either shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother鈥 (Leviticus 21:11). With regard to what bodies is the verse speaking? If it is referring to distant people, i.e., non-relatives, that halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his close family members, may not become impure to bury distant people, then with regard to a High Priest, who does not become impure even to bury close members of his family, is it not logical that he does not become impure to bury distant people? Rather, the verse is speaking of close family members, and it prohibits a High Priest from becoming impure to bury any person, even his relatives.

讜诇讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: 鈥淣or defile himself for his father or for his mother鈥 (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase 鈥渇or his father鈥 teaches: It is to bury his father that he may not become ritually impure, from which it may be inferred that he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.

Scroll To Top