Nazir 48a

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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).

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

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 .

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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 .

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?

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?

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.

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 .

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?

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?