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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 9, 2015 | 讻状讜 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 48

Study Guide Nazir 48


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜诇讗诪讜 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讬谉

The phrase 鈥渙r for his mother鈥 serves as a verbal analogy, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for them when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7), which indicates: It is only when his relatives die that he may not become impure for them. However, he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav, i.e., a nazirite is not forbidden to contract those forms of ritual impurity. And I have derived only that this halakha applies to a nazirite, the subject of this verse. From where do I derive that this applies to a High Priest as well?

讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗诪讜

You can say as follows: The verse need not say 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since this halakha is derived a fortiori: And if in a case where a common priest becomes impure to bury his paternal brother, a High Priest may not become impure even to bury his father, then in a case where a common priest may not become impure to bury his maternal brother, who is not considered a relative with regard to impurity, is it not logical that a High Priest may not become impure to bury his mother herself?

讗诐 讝讻讬转讛 诪讛讚讬谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

And if you have successfully derived this halakha from the a fortiori inference, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest? It is free to teach a novel halakha, and one can compare and learn a verbal analogy from it as fol-lows: It is stated 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a nazirite (Numbers 6:7), and it is stated 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest (Leviticus 21:11).

诪讛 讗诪讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘谞讝讬专 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐 讗祝 讗诪讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐

The Gemara explains: Just as the phrase 鈥渉is mother鈥 stated with regard to a nazirite teaches that in his parents鈥 death he may not become impure to bury them but he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav, as a nazirite is not prohibited from contracting these impurities, so too, the phrase 鈥渉is mother鈥 stated with regard to a High Priest means that in his parents鈥 death he may not become impure, but he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讬专讜 诇讛壮 注诇 谞驻砖 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗

The Gemara clarifies: We found a source for the halakha that a High Priest must become impure for a met mitzva; from where do we derive that a nazirite is likewise obligated? As it is taught in a baraita that it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days that he consecrated himself to the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body [nefesh met]鈥 (Numbers 6:6).

砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 谞驻砖 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘谞驻砖讜转 讛诪讟诪讗讜转 讘讘讬讗讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

I would derive from this verse that a nazirite is prohibited from coming near all bodies, including even the body of an animal, similar to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd he who smites the body [nefesh] of an animal鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body,鈥 employing the dual term nefesh met, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the body of a person. Rabbi Yishmael says: This exposition is unnecessary, as the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not come near,鈥 indicating that the verse is speaking only of bodies that render people and items ritually impure through going in, i.e., entering. In other words, the verse is referring solely to corpses. Entering into a tent in which the corpse is contained renders one impure. By contrast, an animal carcass imparts impurity only by means of contact and carrying.

诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

In any case, once it has been derived that a nazirite is prohibited from becoming impure to bury any person, both relatives and non-relatives, the passage 鈥渉e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7) is available to teach another halakha, that it is for only them that a nazirite may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita asks: Even if the verse had not stated this halakha, I have a way of deriving it by right, i.e., logically, with an a fortiori inference: And if a High Priest, whose sanctity is permanent, may become ritually impure to bury a met mitzva, then in the case of a nazirite, whose sanctity is not permanent, is it not logical that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva as well?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 转讗诪专 讘谞讝讬专 砖诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita rejects this inference: No; if you say that this is true with regard to a High Priest, who does not bring an offering for his impurity, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a nazirite, who does bring an offering for his impurity? Since a nazirite brings an offering for his impurity, perhaps he should not become impure to bury a met mitzva? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7). However, he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讘诇 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps one should expound this verse differently: He may not become impure to bury his father or for his mother; however, he may become impure to bury other dead people. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can say that this argument can be refuted a fortiori: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his relatives, nevertheless may not become impure to bury other dead people (see Leviticus 21:1鈥2), then in the case of a nazirite, who may not become impure to bury his relatives, is it not logical that also he should not become impure to bury other dead people?

讛讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7)? It emphasizes that it is to bury his father and to bury his mother that he may not become impure; however, he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讛 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita questions the need for this derivation: Even if the verse had not stated this halakha, I have a way of deriving it by right, i.e., logically, with an a fortiori inference: General prohibitions are stated in the Torah with regard to a High Priest contracting impurity from a corpse, i.e., 鈥渘either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11), and similar general prohibitions are stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6). The baraita explains: Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to a High Priest teach that it is to bury his father that he may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva, so too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to a nazirite indicate that it is for his father that he may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. Accordingly, there is no need for the derivation from the phrase 鈥渇or his father or for his mother.鈥

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讛 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讗祝 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜

The baraita refutes this proof: Or perhaps you can go this way and accept a different interpretation: General prohibitions are stated with regard to a common priest contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., 鈥渢here shall none defile himself for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), and general prohibitions are stated with regard to a nazirite. Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to a common priest teach that he may become impure to bury his father (Leviticus 21:2), so too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to a nazirite say that he may become impure to bury his father. Perhaps a nazirite is compared to a common priest, not a High Priest.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜

Since one cannot learn from the general prohibitions, one must revert to the previous derivation: The verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7), which indicates that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. The baraita raises a difficulty with this last proof: One requires this verse for the halakha itself, to say that a nazirite, unlike a common priest, may not become impure to bury his father. How, then, can one learn from here that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva?

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诇讻讚专讘讬

Rather, the baraita explains as follows: The superfluous phrase 鈥渇or his father鈥 serves to say that he may not become impure to bury his father, and all the more so for his other relatives. The phrase 鈥渇or his brother鈥 teaches that he may not become impure to bury his brother but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. 鈥淎nd for his mother鈥; this phrase is for a verbal analogy in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a nazirite may contract ritual impurity of types other than a corpse.

讜诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

As for the phrase 鈥渁nd for his sister,鈥 it is used for that which is taught in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd for his sister鈥; what is the meaning when the verse states this with regard to a nazirite? This detail is apparently superfluous, as the halakha that a nazirite may not become impure to bury a relative has already been derived.

讛专讬 砖讛诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: Rather, the term 鈥渁nd for his sister鈥 teaches the following: If someone went to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son, which are particularly stringent positive mitzvot, as their neglect is punished by karet, and he hears that a relative of his had died, one might have thought that he should become impure to bury his dead relative and abandon his performance of the mitzva. You can say in response that he may not become impure, as one is not permitted to neglect the obligation of the Paschal offering or circumcision, even to bury a close relative.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not become impure even to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: 鈥淔or his sister.鈥 It is only for his sister or another close relative that the nazirite may not become impure, but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva. Since the verse had already taught that a nazirite may not become impure to bury a relative but does become impure to bury a met mitzva in an ordinary circumstance, the additional term 鈥渁nd for his sister鈥 teaches that the same halakha applies even when he is going to perform an important mitzva.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖讜转 讗诇讜 讛专讞讜拽讬谉 诪转 讗诇讜 讛拽专讜讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Akiva says that this verse dealing with a nazirite should be explained differently. 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6) teaches the following: 鈥淏ody鈥; these are the distant people. 鈥淒ead鈥; these are the close relatives. The subsequent verse stresses that 鈥渇or his father or for his mother鈥 he may not become impure; however, he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

诇讗讞讬讜 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讞讜转讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讻讜壮

The next term in the verse, 鈥渇or his brother,鈥 indicates that even if he was a High Priest and he was also a nazirite, he may not become impure to bury his brother, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. As for the term 鈥渇or his sister,鈥 this is used to teach that which is taught in a baraita: If one was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son and encountered a met mitzva, the obligation to bury the corpse takes precedence over the other important mitzva.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the derivation of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive the halakha of the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that a High Priest may contract impurities other than the impurity of a corpse? How does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha?

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讛 诇讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞讝讬专 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you: Since the Master said that if someone was a High Priest and also a nazirite, it is to bury his brother that he may not become impure but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva, one can therefore argue: What difference is it to me if he was only a High Priest, and what difference is it to me if he was both a nazirite and a High Priest? Once the Torah has stated that a nazirite may contract other forms of ritual impurity, the same halakha applies equally to a nazirite who is also a High Priest.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讗 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 诇讗讜 讙讘讬 诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇讗讜 诪讛 诇讬 转专讬谉 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the derivation of Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he derive that a High Priest who is also a nazirite must become impure to bury a met mitzva? The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One permits one prohibition with regard to a met mitzva, either that of a High Priest or that of a nazirite, what difference is it to me if one prohibition is permitted, and what difference is it to me if two prohibitions are permitted? Once the Torah has permitted both a High Priest and a nazirite to contract ritual impurity to bury a met mitzva, it makes no difference if a single prohibition or two prohibitions are involved.

讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 砖专讗 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 讜讻讛谉 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讜驻住讞 讚讻专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks further: If so, why do I need the term 鈥渉is sister鈥? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One permits the contracting of impurity to bury a met mitzva, this is in the case of a nazirite and a priest, each of which involves a negative prohibition not to become impure. However, with regard to circumcision and the Paschal offering, whose neglect entails the punishment of karet, perhaps one should not become impure to bury a met mitzva. The verse therefore teaches us that one must become impure even if this forces him to neglect a mitzva whose neglect is punishable by karet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 48

讜诇讗诪讜 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讝讬专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讬谉

The phrase 鈥渙r for his mother鈥 serves as a verbal analogy, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for them when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:7), which indicates: It is only when his relatives die that he may not become impure for them. However, he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav, i.e., a nazirite is not forbidden to contract those forms of ritual impurity. And I have derived only that this halakha applies to a nazirite, the subject of this verse. From where do I derive that this applies to a High Priest as well?

讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗讘讬讜 讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗诪讜

You can say as follows: The verse need not say 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since this halakha is derived a fortiori: And if in a case where a common priest becomes impure to bury his paternal brother, a High Priest may not become impure even to bury his father, then in a case where a common priest may not become impure to bury his maternal brother, who is not considered a relative with regard to impurity, is it not logical that a High Priest may not become impure to bury his mother herself?

讗诐 讝讻讬转讛 诪讛讚讬谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 讜诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讗诪专 讗诪讜 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

And if you have successfully derived this halakha from the a fortiori inference, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest? It is free to teach a novel halakha, and one can compare and learn a verbal analogy from it as fol-lows: It is stated 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a nazirite (Numbers 6:7), and it is stated 鈥渉is mother鈥 with regard to a High Priest (Leviticus 21:11).

诪讛 讗诪讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘谞讝讬专 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐 讗祝 讗诪讜 讛讗诪讜专 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘诪讜转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇谞讙注诐 讜诇讝讬讘转诐

The Gemara explains: Just as the phrase 鈥渉is mother鈥 stated with regard to a nazirite teaches that in his parents鈥 death he may not become impure to bury them but he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav, as a nazirite is not prohibited from contracting these impurities, so too, the phrase 鈥渉is mother鈥 stated with regard to a High Priest means that in his parents鈥 death he may not become impure, but he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav.

讗砖讻讞谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讬诪讬 讛讝讬专讜 诇讛壮 注诇 谞驻砖 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗

The Gemara clarifies: We found a source for the halakha that a High Priest must become impure for a met mitzva; from where do we derive that a nazirite is likewise obligated? As it is taught in a baraita that it is stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days that he consecrated himself to the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body [nefesh met]鈥 (Numbers 6:6).

砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讘诪砖诪注 讻注谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 谞驻砖 诪转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讘讗 讘谞驻砖讜转 讛诪讟诪讗讜转 讘讘讬讗讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

I would derive from this verse that a nazirite is prohibited from coming near all bodies, including even the body of an animal, similar to that which is stated: 鈥淎nd he who smites the body [nefesh] of an animal鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body,鈥 employing the dual term nefesh met, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the body of a person. Rabbi Yishmael says: This exposition is unnecessary, as the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not come near,鈥 indicating that the verse is speaking only of bodies that render people and items ritually impure through going in, i.e., entering. In other words, the verse is referring solely to corpses. Entering into a tent in which the corpse is contained renders one impure. By contrast, an animal carcass imparts impurity only by means of contact and carrying.

诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

In any case, once it has been derived that a nazirite is prohibited from becoming impure to bury any person, both relatives and non-relatives, the passage 鈥渉e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7) is available to teach another halakha, that it is for only them that a nazirite may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 拽讚讜砖转 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita asks: Even if the verse had not stated this halakha, I have a way of deriving it by right, i.e., logically, with an a fortiori inference: And if a High Priest, whose sanctity is permanent, may become ritually impure to bury a met mitzva, then in the case of a nazirite, whose sanctity is not permanent, is it not logical that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva as well?

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 转讗诪专 讘谞讝讬专 砖诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita rejects this inference: No; if you say that this is true with regard to a High Priest, who does not bring an offering for his impurity, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a nazirite, who does bring an offering for his impurity? Since a nazirite brings an offering for his impurity, perhaps he should not become impure to bury a met mitzva? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7). However, he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讘诇 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 砖诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 诇拽专讜讘讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇砖讗专 诪转讬诐

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps one should expound this verse differently: He may not become impure to bury his father or for his mother; however, he may become impure to bury other dead people. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can say that this argument can be refuted a fortiori: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his relatives, nevertheless may not become impure to bury other dead people (see Leviticus 21:1鈥2), then in the case of a nazirite, who may not become impure to bury his relatives, is it not logical that also he should not become impure to bury other dead people?

讛讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淔or his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7)? It emphasizes that it is to bury his father and to bury his mother that he may not become impure; however, he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讛 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 讗祝 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

The baraita questions the need for this derivation: Even if the verse had not stated this halakha, I have a way of deriving it by right, i.e., logically, with an a fortiori inference: General prohibitions are stated in the Torah with regard to a High Priest contracting impurity from a corpse, i.e., 鈥渘either shall he go in to any dead bodies鈥 (Leviticus 21:11), and similar general prohibitions are stated with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6). The baraita explains: Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to a High Priest teach that it is to bury his father that he may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva, so too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to a nazirite indicate that it is for his father that he may not become impure, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. Accordingly, there is no need for the derivation from the phrase 鈥渇or his father or for his mother.鈥

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞讗诪专讜 讻诇诇讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讛 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讗祝 讻诇诇讜转 讛讗诪讜专讜转 讘谞讝讬专 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜

The baraita refutes this proof: Or perhaps you can go this way and accept a different interpretation: General prohibitions are stated with regard to a common priest contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, i.e., 鈥渢here shall none defile himself for the dead among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:1), and general prohibitions are stated with regard to a nazirite. Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to a common priest teach that he may become impure to bury his father (Leviticus 21:2), so too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to a nazirite say that he may become impure to bury his father. Perhaps a nazirite is compared to a common priest, not a High Priest.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜

Since one cannot learn from the general prohibitions, one must revert to the previous derivation: The verse states with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淗e shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother鈥 (Numbers 6:7), which indicates that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. The baraita raises a difficulty with this last proof: One requires this verse for the halakha itself, to say that a nazirite, unlike a common priest, may not become impure to bury his father. How, then, can one learn from here that he may become impure to bury a met mitzva?

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讗讘讬讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诇讻讚专讘讬

Rather, the baraita explains as follows: The superfluous phrase 鈥渇or his father鈥 serves to say that he may not become impure to bury his father, and all the more so for his other relatives. The phrase 鈥渇or his brother鈥 teaches that he may not become impure to bury his brother but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. 鈥淎nd for his mother鈥; this phrase is for a verbal analogy in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a nazirite may contract ritual impurity of types other than a corpse.

讜诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

As for the phrase 鈥渁nd for his sister,鈥 it is used for that which is taught in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd for his sister鈥; what is the meaning when the verse states this with regard to a nazirite? This detail is apparently superfluous, as the halakha that a nazirite may not become impure to bury a relative has already been derived.

讛专讬 砖讛诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: Rather, the term 鈥渁nd for his sister鈥 teaches the following: If someone went to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son, which are particularly stringent positive mitzvot, as their neglect is punished by karet, and he hears that a relative of his had died, one might have thought that he should become impure to bury his dead relative and abandon his performance of the mitzva. You can say in response that he may not become impure, as one is not permitted to neglect the obligation of the Paschal offering or circumcision, even to bury a close relative.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讞讜转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not become impure even to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: 鈥淔or his sister.鈥 It is only for his sister or another close relative that the nazirite may not become impure, but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva. Since the verse had already taught that a nazirite may not become impure to bury a relative but does become impure to bury a met mitzva in an ordinary circumstance, the additional term 鈥渁nd for his sister鈥 teaches that the same halakha applies even when he is going to perform an important mitzva.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖讜转 讗诇讜 讛专讞讜拽讬谉 诪转 讗诇讜 讛拽专讜讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Akiva says that this verse dealing with a nazirite should be explained differently. 鈥淗e shall not come near to a dead body鈥 (Numbers 6:6) teaches the following: 鈥淏ody鈥; these are the distant people. 鈥淒ead鈥; these are the close relatives. The subsequent verse stresses that 鈥渇or his father or for his mother鈥 he may not become impure; however, he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

诇讗讞讬讜 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讞讜转讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜 讻讜壮

The next term in the verse, 鈥渇or his brother,鈥 indicates that even if he was a High Priest and he was also a nazirite, he may not become impure to bury his brother, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. As for the term 鈥渇or his sister,鈥 this is used to teach that which is taught in a baraita: If one was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son and encountered a met mitzva, the obligation to bury the corpse takes precedence over the other important mitzva.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚专讘讬 诪谞诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the derivation of Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive the halakha of the verbal analogy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that a High Priest may contract impurities other than the impurity of a corpse? How does Rabbi Akiva derive this halakha?

讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讝讬专 诇讗讞讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讜讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讛 诇讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 谞讝讬专 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you: Since the Master said that if someone was a High Priest and also a nazirite, it is to bury his brother that he may not become impure but he does become impure to bury a met mitzva, one can therefore argue: What difference is it to me if he was only a High Priest, and what difference is it to me if he was both a nazirite and a High Priest? Once the Torah has stated that a nazirite may contract other forms of ritual impurity, the same halakha applies equally to a nazirite who is also a High Priest.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讜讗 谞讝讬专 诪谞诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖专讗 专讞诪谞讗 讞讚 诇讗讜 讙讘讬 诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇讗讜 诪讛 诇讬 转专讬谉 诇讗讜讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the derivation of Rabbi Yishmael, from where does he derive that a High Priest who is also a nazirite must become impure to bury a met mitzva? The Gemara answers: Since the Merciful One permits one prohibition with regard to a met mitzva, either that of a High Priest or that of a nazirite, what difference is it to me if one prohibition is permitted, and what difference is it to me if two prohibitions are permitted? Once the Torah has permitted both a High Priest and a nazirite to contract ritual impurity to bury a met mitzva, it makes no difference if a single prohibition or two prohibitions are involved.

讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 砖专讗 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 谞讝讬专 讜讻讛谉 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪讬诇讛 讜驻住讞 讚讻专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks further: If so, why do I need the term 鈥渉is sister鈥? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One permits the contracting of impurity to bury a met mitzva, this is in the case of a nazirite and a priest, each of which involves a negative prohibition not to become impure. However, with regard to circumcision and the Paschal offering, whose neglect entails the punishment of karet, perhaps one should not become impure to bury a met mitzva. The verse therefore teaches us that one must become impure even if this forces him to neglect a mitzva whose neglect is punishable by karet.

Scroll To Top