## Nazir Daf 48a

###### Nazir 48a:1
[Nazir 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:1)

״וּלְאִמּוֹ״ — לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, לְכִדְרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: גַּבֵּי נָזִיר ״בְּמוֹתָם״ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְנִגְעָם וּלְזִיבָתָם. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּנָזִיר, בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nazir 48a:2
[Nazir 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:2)

אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״אִמּוֹ״ בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָחִיו מֵאָבִיו — אֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִיטַּמֵּא לְאִמּוֹ?

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


###### Nazir 48a:3
[Nazir 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:3)

אִם זָכִיתָה מֵהַדִּין, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִמּוֹ״ בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל? מוּפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר ״אִמּוֹ״ בְּנָזִיר, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אִמּוֹ״ בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל,

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


###### Nazir 48a:4
[Nazir 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:4)

מָה ״אִמּוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בְּנָזִיר — בְּמוֹתָם אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְנִגְעָם וּלְזִיבָתָם, אַף ״אִמּוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — בְּמוֹתָם אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְנִגְעָם וּלְזִיבָתָם.

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


###### Nazir 48a:5
[Nazir 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:5)

אַשְׁכְּחַן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. נָזִיר מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כׇּל יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ לַה׳ עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״,

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


###### Nazir 48a:6
[Nazir 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:6)

שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ נֶפֶשׁ בְּהֵמָה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ בְּהֵמָה״, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״, בְּנֶפֶשׁ אָדָם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יָבֹא״ — בִּנְפָשׁוֹת הַמְטַמְּאוֹת בְּבִיאָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

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


###### Nazir 48a:7
[Nazir 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:7)

״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ״ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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


###### Nazir 48a:8
[Nazir 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:8)

עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמֵר, יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין: וּמָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם, מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה, נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nazir 48a:9
[Nazir 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:9)

לֹא: אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ, תֹּאמַר בְּנָזִיר, שֶׁמֵּבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ. הוֹאִיל וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ לֹא יִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא״, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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


###### Nazir 48a:10
[Nazir 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48a:10)

אוֹ: אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ, אֲבָל יִטַּמֵּא לִשְׁאָר מֵתִים! אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, שֶׁמִּיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִין — אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִשְׁאָר מֵתִים, נָזִיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִין — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִטַּמֵּא לִשְׁאָר מֵתִים?

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