## Nazir Daf 42b

###### Nazir 42b:1
[Nazir 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִקְרָא מָלֵא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב: ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא״. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יָבֹא״ — לְהַזְהִירוֹ עַל הַטּוּמְאָה, לְהַזְהִירוֹ עַל הַבִּיאָה. אֲבָל טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** A dispute among *amora’im* **was stated. Rabba said** that **Rav Huna said: The Torah stated** a *halakha* involving a nazirite in **a categorical verse: “He shall not become impure** for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:7). This includes all manners of contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, whether ritual impurity imparted by contact, by carrying, or in a tent, i.e., a corpse under the same roof. **When** the Torah **states: “He shall not come** near to a dead body” (Numbers 6:6), it serves **to warn him with regard to** contracting **impurity** from a corpse in any manner, as above, and **to warn him with regard to entering** an enclosure with a corpse, which is a unique prohibition applicable to a nazirite that is added by the phrase “He shall not come near to a dead body,” and he is liable separately for each. **However,** with regard to one contracting **impurity** from a corpse **and** again contracting **impurity** from a corpse, the verse does **not** warn him, and he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.


###### Nazir 42b:2
[Nazir 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:2)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְהוֹשִׁיטוּ לוֹ מֵתוֹ וּמֵת אַחֵר וְנָגַע בּוֹ — חַיָּיב. אַמַּאי? הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef says** in the form of an oath: **By God! Rav Huna** actually **says** that he is separately liable **even** for contracting **impurity** from a corpse **and** again contracting **impurity** from a corpse, not only if he entered an enclosure with a corpse. **As Rav Huna says:** With regard to **a nazirite who was standing in a cemetery,** who is already ritually impure, **and they extended his corpse,** i.e., the corpse of his relative, **to him, and** similarly if they extended **a different corpse** to him **and he touched it,** he is **liable.** But **why** is he liable; he **has already become impure and is standing** in his state of impurity? **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** this that **Rav Huna said** he is separately liable **even** for contracting **impurity** from a corpse **and** again contracting **impurity** from a corpse?


###### Nazir 42b:3
[Nazir 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:3)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵת מוּנָּח עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְהוֹשִׁיטוּ לוֹ מֵתוֹ וּמֵת אַחֵר וְנָגַע בּוֹ, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״, בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּלָּל, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְחוּלָּל וְעוֹמֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rav Yosef from a *baraita*: With regard to **a priest who had a corpse placed on his shoulder, and they extended his corpse,** i.e., the corpse of his relative, **to him, and** similarly if they extended **a different corpse** to him **and he touched it,** one **might** have thought that **he should be liable** even for this contact. Therefore, **the verse states,** with regard to the prohibition against a High Priest becoming impure: **“And he shall not profane** the Sanctuary of his God” (Leviticus 21:12). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies **to one who is not** yet **profaned, excluding this one who is** already **profaned and standing** in that state of ritual impurity.


###### Nazir 42b:4
[Nazir 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְתִיקְשֵׁי לָךְ מַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: הָיָה מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״ — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: But** if, as you claim, one is not liable for contracting one impurity after another, **the mishna should pose a difficulty for you. As we learned** in the mishna: If a nazirite **became ritually impure from corpses** many times **all day, he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes. **If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure,** and he continues to become impure, **he is liable for each and every** time he was warned. **But why** should this be so? **He has already become impure and is standing** in his state of impurity.


###### Nazir 42b:5
[Nazir 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:5)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא אַהֲדָדֵי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּחִיבּוּרִין. כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the mishna and *baraita* pose **a difficulty for each other.** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **here** the *baraita* is referring **to a concurrent** contact with impurity, i.e., when he touched the second corpse he was still in contact with the first, so he is not liable for the second impurity. Conversely, **there** the mishna is referring **to** impurity that was **not a concurrent** contact. He touched the second corpse only after he had separated himself from the first, and therefore he is liable for each impurity.


###### Nazir 42b:6
[Nazir 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:6)

וְטוּמְאָה בְּחִיבּוּרִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? הָא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאָה בְּחִיבּוּרִין אֶלָּא לִתְרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֵׂה פֶסַח — לָא. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** this *halakha*, that a nazirite is exempt from being flogged for a second contact with a corpse in a case of **concurrent impurity,** does it apply **by Torah law? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef say** that **Rabbi Yannai said: They stated** the principle of **concurrent impurity only with regard to** partaking of ***teruma* and consecrated** foods, i.e., that one who touches a person who is in contact with a corpse is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse for seven days. **However, with regard to a nazirite,** i.e., the question of whether a nazirite is considered ritually impure and has to bring offerings due to this contact, **and** with regard to **one who performs** the ritual of **the Paschal offering,** this *halakha* does **not** apply. **And if you say** that this *halakha* applies **by Torah law, what is different** between the case of *teruma* and the case of a nazirite?


###### Nazir 42b:7
[Nazir 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:7)

כָּאן, בְּחִיבּוּרֵי אָדָם בְּאָדָם. כָּאן, בְּחִיבּוּרֵי אָדָם בְּמֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that there are two different types of concurrent impurity. **Here,** where there is a difference between *teruma* and a nazirite, it is referring to **concurrent** contact of one **person with** another **person.** If one touched another while the other was in contact with a corpse, the impurity of the first is by rabbinic law. By contrast, **there** it is referring **to concurrent** contact of **a person with a corpse.** One who is touching a corpse is considered linked to impurity by Torah law with regard to his second contact with a corpse.


###### Nazir 42b:8
[Nazir 42b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:8)

אֲבָל טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה לָא, דְּהָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara summarizes: The fact that one who is touching a corpse is not liable for contact with a second corpse leads to Rabba’s aforementioned ruling: **However,** with regard to contracting **impurity** from a corpse **and** again contracting **impurity** from a corpse, i.e., if a person contracted impurity imparted by a corpse and then touched another corpse while still in contact with the first corpse, he is **not** liable for the second impurity, **as he has already become impure and is standing** in his state of ritual impurity.


###### Nazir 42b:9
[Nazir 42b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:9)

טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה נָמֵי, הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵי! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּאן בְּבַיִת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to **impurity and entering** one should say **likewise,** that when he enters an enclosure containing a corpse when he is in contact with a corpse, **he has already become impure and is standing** in his impurity. Why should he be flogged again for entering the enclosure? **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In the case of impurity and entering one must again distinguish between two instances: **Here,** where Rav Huna said that one will be liable for both contractions of impurity, it is referring to one who was pure and who went **into a house** that contained a corpse, rendering him liable twice. The entering the house and the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, occurred simultaneously, and therefore he is liable twice, once for contracting ritual impurity and once for violating the particular prohibition against a nazirite entering an enclosure with a corpse in it.


###### Nazir 42b:10
[Nazir 42b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/42b:10)

כָּאן בְּשָׂדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Whereas **there,** where he is liable only once, it is referring to one who was **in a field.** In other words, if a nazirite touched a corpse in a field and subsequently entered an enclosure with a corpse in it while he was still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable separately for that entering, as he was already ritually impure.