Nazir 48

ולאמו לגזירה שוה לכדרבי דתניא רבי אומר גבי נזיר במותם אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא לנגעם ולזיבתם ואין לי אלא בנזיר בכהן גדול מנין

The phrase “or for his mother” 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: “He shall not become defiled for them when they die” (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?

אמרת לא יאמר אמו בכהן גדול שאין תלמוד לומר שהרי קל וחומר הוא ומה אם במקום שכהן הדיוט מיטמא לאחיו מאביו אין כהן גדול מיטמא לאביו מקום שאין כהן הדיוט מיטמא לאחיו מאמו אינו דין שאין כהן גדול מיטמא לאמו

You can say as follows: The verse need not say “his mother” 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?

אם זכיתה מהדין מה תלמוד לומר אמו בכהן גדול מופנה להקיש ולדון הימנו גזירה שוה נאמר אמו בנזיר ונאמר אמו בכהן גדול

And if you have successfully derived this halakha from the a fortiori inference, what is the meaning when the verse states “his mother” 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 “his mother” with regard to a nazirite (Numbers 6:7), and it is stated “his mother” with regard to a High Priest (Leviticus 21:11).

מה אמו האמור בנזיר במותם אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא לנגעם ולזיבתם אף אמו האמור בכהן גדול במותם אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא לנגעם ולזיבתם

The Gemara explains: Just as the phrase “his mother” stated with regard to a nazirite teaches that in his parents’ 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 “his mother” stated with regard to a High Priest means that in his parents’ death he may not become impure, but he may become impure for their leprosy and for their emission of a zav.

אשכחן כהן גדול נזיר מנלן דתניא כל ימי הזירו לה׳ על נפש מת לא יבא

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: “All the days that he consecrated himself to the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body [nefesh met]” (Numbers 6:6).

שומע אני אפילו נפש בהמה במשמע כענין שנאמר מכה נפש בהמה תלמוד לומר על נפש מת לא יבא בנפש אדם הכתוב מדבר רבי ישמעאל אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר לא יבא בנפשות המטמאות בביאה הכתוב מדבר

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: “And he who smites the body [nefesh] of an animal” (Leviticus 24:18). Therefore, the verse states: “He shall not come near to a dead body,” 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: “He shall not come near,” 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.

לאביו ולאמו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא למת מצוה

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 “he shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother” (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.

עד שלא יאמר יש לי בדין ומה כהן גדול שקדושתו קדושת עולם מיטמא למת מצוה נזיר שאין קדושתו קדושת עולם אינו דין שמיטמא למת מצוה

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?

לא אם אמרת בכהן גדול שכן אינו מביא קרבן על טומאתו תאמר בנזיר שמביא קרבן על טומאתו הואיל ומביא קרבן על טומאתו לא יטמא למת מצוה תלמוד לומר לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא אבל מיטמא למת מצוה

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: “He shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother” (Numbers 6:7). However, he does become impure to bury a met mitzva.

או אינו מיטמא לאביו ולאמו אבל יטמא לשאר מתים אמרת קל וחומר ומה כהן הדיוט שמיטמא לקרובין אינו מיטמא לשאר מתים נזיר שאינו מיטמא לקרובין אינו דין שלא יטמא לשאר מתים

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 21:1–2), 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?

הא מה תלמוד לומר לאביו ולאמו לאביו ולאמו הוא דלא מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא למת מצוה

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “For his father, or for his mother” (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.

עד שלא יאמר יש לי בדין נאמרו כללות בכהן גדול ונאמרו כללות בנזיר מה כללות האמורות בכהן גדול לאביו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא למת מצוה אף כללות האמורות בנזיר לאביו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא למת מצוה

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., “neither shall he go in to any dead bodies” (Leviticus 21:11), and similar general prohibitions are stated with regard to a nazirite: “He shall not come near to a dead body” (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 “for his father or for his mother.”

או כלך לדרך זו נאמרו כללות בכהן הדיוט ונאמרו כללות בנזיר מה כללות האמורות בכהן הדיוט מיטמא לאביו אף כללות האמורות בנזיר מיטמא לאביו

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., “there shall none defile himself for the dead among his people” (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.

תלמוד לומר לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא הא למת מצוה מיטמא הא מיבעי ליה לומר שאין מיטמא לאביו

Since one cannot learn from the general prohibitions, one must revert to the previous derivation: The verse states with regard to a nazirite: “He shall not become defiled for his father, or for his mother” (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?

אלא לאביו לומר שאין מיטמא לאביו לאחיו אינו מיטמא הא למת מצוה מיטמא ולאמו לגזרה שוה לכדרבי

Rather, the baraita explains as follows: The superfluous phrase “for his father” serves to say that he may not become impure to bury his father, and all the more so for his other relatives. The phrase “for his brother” teaches that he may not become impure to bury his brother but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva. “And for his mother”; 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.

ולאחותו לכדתניא דתניא לאחותו מה תלמוד לומר

As for the phrase “and for his sister,” it is used for that which is taught in a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita: “And for his sister”; 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.

הרי שהלך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ושמע שמת לו מת יכול יטמא אמרת לא יטמא

The baraita continues: Rather, the term “and for his sister” 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.

יכול לא יטמא למת מצוה תלמוד לומר לאחותו לאחותו הוא דאינו מיטמא הא למת מצוה מיטמא

The baraita continues: One might have thought that he may not become impure even to bury a met mitzva. The verse states: “For his sister.” 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 “and for his sister” teaches that the same halakha applies even when he is going to perform an important mitzva.

רבי עקיבא אומר נפשות אלו הרחוקין מת אלו הקרובין לאביו ולאמו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא למת מצוה

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

לאחיו שאם היה כהן גדול והוא נזיר לאחיו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא למת מצוה לאחותו כדתניא הרי שהיה הולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו כו׳

The next term in the verse, “for his brother,” 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 “for his sister,” 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.

ולרבי עקיבא גזירה שוה דרבי מנליה

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?

אמר לך כיון דאמר מר אם היה כהן גדול ונזיר לאחיו אינו מיטמא אבל מיטמא הוא למת מצוה מה לי כהן גדול לחודיה מה לי נזיר וכהן גדול

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.

ולרבי ישמעאל כהן גדול והוא נזיר מנליה כיון דשרא רחמנא חד לאו גבי מת מצוה מה לי חד לאו מה לי תרין לאוין

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.

אחותו למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא כי שרא רחמנא למת מצוה נזיר וכהן דאיסור לאוי הוא אבל מילה ופסח דכרת לא יטמא למת מצוה קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks further: If so, why do I need the term “his sister”? 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.