## Nazir Daf 48b

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

הָא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ״, לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ הוּא דְּלֹא מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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


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

עַד שֶׁלֹּא יֵאָמֵר יֵשׁ לִי בַּדִּין: נֶאֶמְרוּ כְּלָלוֹת בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כְּלָלוֹת בְּנָזִיר. מָה כְּלָלוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — לְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה, אַף כְּלָלוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּנָזִיר — לְאָבִיו אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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


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

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֶמְרוּ כְּלָלוֹת בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כְּלָלוֹת בְּנָזִיר. מָה כְּלָלוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו, אַף כְּלָלוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּנָזִיר — מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא״, הָא לְמֵת מִצְוָה מִיטַּמֵּא. הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו?

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


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

אֶלָּא: ״לְאָבִיו״ — לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִיטַּמֵּא לְאָבִיו. ״לְאָחִיו״ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא — הָא לְמֵת מִצְוָה מִיטַּמֵּא. ״וּלְאִמּוֹ״ — לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, לְכִדְרַבִּי.

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


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

״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״, לְכִדְתַנְיָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״לְאַחוֹתוֹ״ מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת — יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמֵּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

יָכוֹל לֹא יִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְאַחוֹתוֹ״ — לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, הָא לְמֵת מִצְוָה — מִיטַּמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״נְפָשׁוֹת״ — אֵלּוּ הָרְחוֹקִין, ״מֵת״ — אֵלּוּ הַקְּרוֹבִין, ״לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ״ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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


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

״לְאָחִיו״ — שֶׁאִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְהוּא נָזִיר, לְאָחִיו אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה. ״לְאַחוֹתוֹ״, כִּדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 48b:11
[Nazir 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48b:11)

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה דְּרַבִּי, מְנָלֵיהּ?

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


###### Nazir 48b:12
[Nazir 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48b:12)

אָמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר, לְאָחִיו אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה — מָה לִי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְחוֹדֵיהּ, מָה לִי נָזִיר וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 48b:13
[Nazir 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48b:13)

וּלְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְהוּא נָזִיר מְנָלֵיהּ? כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁרָא רַחֲמָנָא חַד לָאו גַּבֵּי מֵת מִצְוָה — מָה לִי חַד לָאו, מָה לִי תְּרֵין לָאוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nazir 48b:14
[Nazir 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nazir/r/48b:14)

״אַחוֹתוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כִּי שְׁרָא רַחֲמָנָא לְמֵת מִצְוָה — נָזִיר וְכֹהֵן, דְּאִיסּוּר לָאוֵי הוּא. אֲבָל מִילָה וּפֶסַח, דְּכָרֵת — לֹא יִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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