## Nazir Daf 47b

###### Nazir 47b:1
[Nazir 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:1)

וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה — מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְאִילּוּ מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — אֵין מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 47b:2
[Nazir 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:2)

מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים עָדִיף, דִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה, וְאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר — לָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nazir 47b:3
[Nazir 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:3)

עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ וְעָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ — עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ הַאי חֲזִי לַעֲבוֹדָה לְמָחָר, וְאִילּוּ עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ לֹא חֲזִי לָעֲבוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Nazir 47b:4
[Nazir 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וּסְגָן, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לְמִלְחָמָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא סְגָן עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לַעֲבוֹדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Nazir 47b:5
[Nazir 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה לִסְגָן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — יִטַּמֵּא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא הַסְּגָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nazir 47b:6
[Nazir 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:6)

וְהָתַנְיָא: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה קוֹדֵם לִסְגָן! אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְעִנְיַן הַחֲיוֹתוֹ — מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף, מַאי טַעְמָא — דִּתְלוּ בֵּיהּ רַבִּים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 47b:7
[Nazir 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:7)

וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה סְגָן עֲדִיף. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה תִּקְּנוּ סְגָן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — שֶׁאִם אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל הֲרֵי נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nazir 47b:8
[Nazir 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:8)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר כִּי קָא אָזְלִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל חַד חַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי אִינּוּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Nazir 47b:9
[Nazir 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:9)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל נַפְשׁוֹת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״, בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִי בִּרְחוֹקִים — קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהוּא מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים? אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 47b:10
[Nazir 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/47b:10)

וּלְאָבִיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, הָא מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**