Nazir 47 – Shabbat March 11

מתני׳ מי שנזרק עליו אחד מן הדמים ונטמא רבי אליעזר אומר סותר את הכל וחכמים אומרים יביא שאר קרבנותיו ויטהר אמרו לו מעשה במרים התרמודית שנזרק עליה אחד מן הדמים ובאו ואמרו לה על בתה שהיתה מסוכנת והלכה ומצאה שמתה ואמרו חכמים תביא שאר קרבנותיה ותטהר:

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.

גמ׳ קתני רבי אליעזר אומר סותר את הכל והאמר רבי אליעזר כל אחר מלאת שבעה סותר אמר רב מאי סותר נמי דקאמר רבי אליעזר סותר קרבנותיו

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says that this negates the entire tally. The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.

הכי נמי מסתברא דקתני וחכמים אומרים תביא שאר קרבנותיה ותטהר שמע מינה

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s 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.

ומעשה נמי במרים התרמודית שנזרק עליה אחד מן הדמים ובאו והודיעוה על בתה שהיתה מסוכנת והלכה ומצאה שמתה ואמרו חכמים תביא שאר קרבנותיה ותטהר שמע מינה:

The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna’im 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.

הדרן עלך שלשה מינין

כהן גדול ונזיר אין מיטמאין לקרוביהן אבל מיטמאין למת מצוה היו מהלכין בדרך ומצאו מת מצוה רבי אליעזר אומר יטמא כהן גדול ואל יטמא נזיר וחכמים אומרים יטמא נזיר ואל יטמא כהן הדיוט

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.

אמר להם רבי אליעזר יטמא כהן שאינו מביא קרבן על טומאתו ואל יטמא נזיר שהוא מביא קרבן על טומאתו אמרו לו יטמא נזיר שאין קדושתו קדושת עולם ואל יטמא כהן שקדושתו קדושת עולם:

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.

גמ׳ בשלמא כהן גדול ונזיר האי סבר כהן גדול עדיף והאי סבר נזיר עדיף

GEMARA: In light of the mishna’s 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.

משוח בשמן המשחה

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

ומרובה בגדים משוח בשמן המשחה עדיף דאילו משוח בשמן המשחה מביא פר הבא על כל המצות ואילו מרובה בגדים אין מביא

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 4:3–12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.

משוח שעבר ומרובה בגדים מרובה בגדים עדיף דמרובה בגדים עביד עבודה ואילו משוח שעבר לאו בר עבודה הוא

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.

עבר מחמת קירויו ועבר מחמת מומו עבר מחמת קירויו עדיף דאילו האי חזי לעבודה למחר ואילו עבר מחמת מומו לא חזי לעבודה

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 21:16–24).

איבעיא להו משוח מלחמה וסגן הי מינייהו עדיף משוח מלחמה עדיף דחזי למלחמה או דלמא סגן עדיף דחזי לעבודה

§ 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.

תא שמע דתניא אין בין משוח מלחמה לסגן אלא שאם היו מהלכין בדרך ומצאו מת מצוה יטמא משוח מלחמה ואל יטמא הסגן

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.

והתניא משוח מלחמה קודם לסגן אמר מר זוטרא לענין החיותו משוח מלחמה עדיף מאי טעמא דתלו ביה רבים

The Gemara asks: But isn’t 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.

ולענין טומאה סגן עדיף דתניא רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר למה תקנו סגן לכהן גדול שאם אירע בו פסול הרי נכנס ומשמש תחתיו

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 Ḥanina 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.

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בכהן גדול ונזיר כי קא אזלי בהדי הדדי אבל חד חד לחודיה בר איטמויי אינון מנא הני מילי

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?

דתנו רבנן על כל נפשות מת לא יבא במה הכתוב מדבר אי ברחוקים קל וחומר הוא ומה כהן הדיוט שהוא מיטמא לקרובים אינו מיטמא לרחוקים כהן גדול שאינו מיטמא לקרובים אינו דין שאינו מיטמא לרחוקים אלא בקרובים הכתוב מדבר

It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (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.

ולאביו הוא דאינו מיטמא הא מיטמא הוא למת מצוה

The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: “Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase “for his father” 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.