## Nazir Daf 43a

###### Nazir 43a:1
[Nazir 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:1)

בְּבַיִת נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאַעֵיל יְדֵיהּ — אִיסְתָּאַב, כִּי עָיֵיל כּוּלֵּי, הַאי טָמֵא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to one who enters **into a house too,** why should he be liable twice? Since one typically enters a place with his hands before his body, **once he inserts his hand he** immediately **becomes ritually impure.** This means that **when all** the rest **of him enters, this** person **is** already **impure.**


###### Nazir 43a:2
[Nazir 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: צֵירַף יָדוֹ, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה — אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה — לֵיכָּא. וְצֵירַף גּוּפוֹ — טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ. הָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא עָיֵיל חוֹטְמוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא, וְנָחֵית לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Elazar said:** If **he inserted his hand** into the house first, **there is** liability **due to** contracting **ritual impurity;** however, **there is no** liability **due to entering** the enclosure. **But** if **he joined his body** and his hands, i.e., all of him entered at once, contraction of **impurity and entering** the enclosure **occur simultaneously,** and in that case he is liable twice. The Gemara objects: **It is impossible** that **his nose would not enter first, and** once it does, **impurity would descend to it** and thereby to this person immediately, before the rest of his body entered the house.


###### Nazir 43a:3
[Nazir 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִכְנִיס יָדוֹ, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה — אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה — לֵיכָּא. הִכְנִיס גּוּפוֹ — טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָא אָתְיָין. וְהָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא עָיֵיל אֶצְבְּעָתָא דְכַרְעֵיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא וְנָחֵת לְהוּ טוּמְאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** If **he entered** with only **his hand there is** liability **due to** contracting **ritual impurity,** but **there is no** liability **due to entering** an enclosure with a corpse, as he cannot be considered inside the house. If **he entered** with **his body** by standing upright so that his head would not enter first, contraction of **impurity and entering** the enclosure **occur simultaneously.** The Gemara asks: **But** even so, **it is impossible** that **his toes would not enter first, and** once they do, **impurity would** thereby **descend to them,** causing him to become impure before his entire body enters the house.


###### Nazir 43a:4
[Nazir 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וּפָרַע עָלָיו אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה, דְּטוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּעָיֵיל כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס, וּנְפַק נִשְׁמְתֵיהּ אַדְּיָתֵיב. דְּטוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said:** We are dealing with a case **where one entered** into a house **in a chest, a box, or a cabinet,** which are not susceptible to ritual impurity and which protect their contents from impurity when they can hold more than forty *se’a*, **and another came and opened the cover** of the vessel **from over him.** In **that** case contracting **impurity and entering** the enclosure **occur simultaneously. Mar bar Rav Ashi said:** It is referring to a case **where one entered** the house **when** someone there **was dying, and** the latter’s **soul departed when** he **was sitting** there. In **that** case too, contracting **impurity and entering** the enclosure with a corpse **occur simultaneously.** Since there was no corpse in the enclosure when he entered, he is considered to have entered an enclosure with a corpse at the moment the person died.


###### Nazir 43a:5
[Nazir 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״, עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיָּמוּת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּמוֹתָם יִטַּמָּא״, עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse, **the Sages taught:** The Torah states concerning a priest’s exposure to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: “He shall not become impure, a chief among his people, **to profane himself”** (Leviticus 21:4), from which it is derived that the prohibition does not apply **until the time that** the person with whom he comes into contact **dies.** A priest does not become impure or profane his priesthood at any earlier stage. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that the verse stated with regard to a nazirite: “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), from which one can infer that **when they die,** one **contracts ritual impurity** from them, i.e., not **until** the other person actually **dies.**


###### Nazir 43a:6
[Nazir 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:6)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: גּוֹסֵס אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹסֵס, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״ — עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת אִין, גּוֹסֵס לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** these two derivations? They apparently state the same *halakha* from different verses. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The interpretation of the meaning** of the verse **is** the difference **between them.** There is no practical difference between them; rather, they derive the *halakha* from different verses. **Reish Lakish said:** The difference **between them** is with regard to **a dying person: According to the one who says** that one derives the *halakha* from “He shall not become impure, a chief among his people, **to profane himself,” even a dying person** is included in the prohibition of impurity. **According to the one who says** that it is derived from **“when they die,” once he dies, yes** there is impurity, whereas **a dying person, no,** he does not impart impurity.


###### Nazir 43a:7
[Nazir 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:7)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״, הָכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹתָם״! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמוֹתָם אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא בְּנִגְעָתָם וּבְזִיבָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Reish Lakish’s opinion: **And according to the one who says** that it is derived from **“to profane himself,” isn’t it written: “When they die”?** What does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: **He requires** that verse **for that which** was taught **by Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that the verse stresses “when they die,” to teach: In a case **when they die he may not become impure; however, he may become impure from their leprosy or from their gonorrhea-like discharge.** A nazirite is prohibited from contracting ritual impurity only if it is from a corpse.


###### Nazir 43a:8
[Nazir 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:8)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי סְבָרָא! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״בְּמוֹת״, מַאי ״בְּמוֹתָם״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that the earliest time the prohibition takes effect is derived from the phrase **“when they die,” he** also **requires that** verse **for this reason;** how does he derive two *halakhot* from the same verse? The Gemara answers: **If so, let the verse state: When he dies; what is** the reason for the emphasis of **“when they die”? You can learn from** this verse **two** *halakhot*, that one does not impart impurity until he is actually dead, and that a nazirite is prohibited from contracting only the impurity of a corpse.


###### Nazir 43a:9
[Nazir 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:9)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״, הָכְתִיב ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״! ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא, בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּלָּל, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְּחוּלָּל וְעוֹמֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the reverse question: **And according to the one who says** that the source for the earliest time of the impurity of a corpse is the verse **“when they die,” isn’t it written: “To profane himself”?** What does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: **“To profane himself” comes for this** purpose, that the prohibition against becoming impure apply only **to one who is not profaned, excluding one who is** already **profaned.** There is no prohibition against a ritually impure priest becoming impure from a corpse.


###### Nazir 43a:10
[Nazir 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:10)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי סְבָרָא! אִם כֵּן לֵימָא קְרָא ״לְהֵחֵל״, מַאי ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who says** that the source for the commencement of impurity imparted by a corpse is **“to profane himself,” he** also **requires that** verse **for this reason;** how does he derive two *halakhot* from the same verse? The Gemara answers: **If so, let the verse state: To profane; what is** the reason for the emphasis of **“to profane himself”? You can learn from** this verse **two** *halakhot*, that a nazirite is prohibited from becoming impure even through contact with a dying person, and that there is no prohibition against contracting impurity a second time for one who is already impure.


###### Nazir 43a:11
[Nazir 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/43a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: אָדָם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא (אֶלָּא) עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ. וַאֲפִילּוּ מְגוּיָּיד וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹסֵס. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״ הָא קָתָנֵי דְּאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא! לְעִנְיַן טַמּוֹיֵי — עַד דְּנָפְקָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, לְעִנְיַן אִתַּחוֹלֵי — הָא אִיתַּחִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Oholot* 1:6): **A person renders** others **impure only when his soul departs** from **him, even if he has severe lacerations [*meguyyad*], and even if** he **is dying. But according to the one who says** that the commencement of the impurity of a corpse is derived **from “to profane himself,”** this *baraita* is difficult, as it **teaches** that a dying person **does not impart impurity.** The Gemara answers: **With regard to imparting impurity,** he does not impart impurity **until his soul departs, but with regard to profaning** the sanctity of the priesthood, a priest **is profaned** by a dying person.