Nazir 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

It was stated: Rabba said that Rav Huna said:

It is written in the passage concerning a nazirite: “All the days that he consecrates himself to the Lord, he shall not come near a dead person [in the tent of the dead]. He shall not become impure for them at the death of his father, or his mother, or his brother, or his sister [whether through contact, carrying, or being under the same tent]”:

And once the verse is

a complete verse

[a verse that fills in and completes everything]

has spoken: “

He shall not become impure,”

which includes all forms of impurity from a dead person, then

when it says “

He shall not come near”—which indicates entering only into the tent of the dead person—

what does this come to teach?

To warn him

who enters the tent of the dead person

concerning the impurity

that he contracts, and

to warn him

also

concerning the entry: That is, if he enters the tent of the dead person and becomes impure, he has violated two prohibitions: “He shall not become impure,” since he became impure, and “He shall not come near,” since he entered the tent of the dead person; and he receives two sets of lashes.

Rav Huna adds:

But

not

to receive lashes for

impurity and impurity

[twice [without becoming pure in the interim]]

is he liable.

For one who is already impure remains exempt if he becomes impure again, even if he was warned again, since a nazirite is liable only when he becomes impure or when he adds impurity to his previous impurity.

But Rav Yosef said: By God

[it is an oath]

! Rav Huna said: Even for impurity and impurity

he receives two sets of lashes, when he became impure and then became impure again, if they warned him between one act of impurity and the other, even though he did not add any impurity through the second act beyond his initial impurity.

But

this is what

Rav Huna said:

A nazirite who was standing

in a cemetery

and became impure there,

and they extended his dead relative to him

[his deceased relative]

and another dead person

or another dead person

touched him,

he is

liable

if they warned him a second time.

And

why!?

He is already impure and remains so

[he is already impure and continues to be impure]—

Rather, learn from this: Rav Huna said that even for impurity and impurity one is liable twice.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Yosef from that which was taught in a beraita:

A nazirite who had a dead person placed

for him

on his shoulders,

and they extended his dead relative to him, and another dead person touched him—one might have thought that he is liable

even for the second impurity;

the verse therefore says with regard to the impurity of priests [Leviticus 21:4]: “He shall not become impure among his people

to profane himself”—

to profane himself.”

We have thus learned that the verse is speaking

of one who is not yet defiled

and warns him not to become defiled.

This one, who is already defiled and remains so, is excluded

and is not warned against becoming impure again; and once we have learned this from the verse with regard to a priest, we likewise learn it with regard to a nazirite through the gzera shava “his mother, his mother.”

He said to him Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

Rather than objecting to me from that beraita

—

raise an objection to yourself

from that same beraita against the

Mishna

[our Mishna], which teaches in accordance with my view that even for impurity and impurity he receives two sets of lashes,

as we learned: If he was becoming impure from the dead all day, he is liable only once.

But if they said to him:

“Do not become impure,”

“Do not become impure,”

Do not become impure,”

he is

liable for each and every one. And why!?

He is already impure and remains so!?

Rather,

it must be that

they contradict one another

[the Mishna and the beraita contradict one another], and the beraita should be deleted in favor of the Mishna; thus there is no longer an objection to my statement in the name of Rav Huna, which accords with the Mishna.

[the Mishna and the beraita contradict one another]. Therefore, delete the beraita in favor of the Mishna, and there is no longer a difficulty against my statement in the name of Rav Huna, which accords with the Mishna.

Abaye said:

There is no difficulty

between the Mishna and the beraita: The beraita exempts him only when he did not add impurity to his impurity, whereas our Mishna is dealing with a case in which he added impurity to his impurity, and therefore he is liable. How so?

a. The dead person himself is the primary source of impurity, and one who touches him becomes a primary source of impurity and is impure with seven-day impurity

b. One who touches a person while that person is touching a dead person, extending a tent over him, or carrying him is called impurity through attachment [and at times it is called “touching one who touches”], and he is impure with seven-day impurity.

c. The later authorities explained the parameters of this law:

As long as the person who became impure has not separated from the dead person, he himself becomes the primary source of impurity; therefore, one who touches him at that time becomes a primary source of impurity and is impure with seven-day impurity.

Here

the beraita is dealing with a case in which he became impure again while he was still

attached

to the dead person, as is explicit in the beraita: “He had a dead person placed on his shoulders ; and they extended his dead relative to him.” If so, he did not add any impurity through contact with the other dead person, and therefore he is not liable for the second impurity, because it is stated: “to profane himself.”

But

here, in our Mishna, we are dealing with a case in which he became impure again when he was already

not attached

to the dead person, and when he again became attached to the dead person and became a primary source of impurity, he added impurity to his impurity. Therefore, he is liable even though he is already defiled and remains so, provided that they warned him between the two acts.

to the corpse. When he then reconnected with the corpse and became a primary source of ritual impurity, he added impurity to his impurity. Therefore, he is liable even though he was already profaned and remained so, provided that they warned him between the two acts.

The statements of Rav Huna are consequently also reconciled: He said, “But for impurity and impurity, no,” although our Mishna indicates that he is liable, because Rav Huna too is dealing with a case in which he had not yet separated from the dead person.

And we raise an objection: And

is it really the case that

impurity through attachment

is

a Torah law

, such that you say that when he again becomes attached to the dead person, he is liable to lashes because he added impurity to himself!?

But Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yannai said:

They stated the law of impurity through attachment

—that one who touches a person attached to a dead person is impure with seven-day impurity, as though he had touched the dead person himself—

only with regard to

the matter of

teruma and consecrated offerings.

But with regard to a nazirite,

who must invalidate his naziriteship and shave a “shaving for impurity”

when he touches one who is attached to a dead person, and with regard to

one who performs the Paschal offering,

who must refrain, because of this seven-day impurity, from performing the Paschal offering,

they did not

state this law; rather, the Sages were lenient in these two cases.

And if you say

that impurity through attachment is

a Torah law,

then

what difference is there

between teruma and consecrated offerings on the one hand, and a nazirite and one who performs the Paschal offering on the other!?

And we answer:

Here—in the statement of Rabbi Yannai— is attachment of one person to another,

when one person was attached to another person who was attached to a dead person; in that case, one who touches him is impure with seven-day impurity only by rabbinic decree.

Here—in our Mishna—

is attachment of a person to a dead person,

when the nazirite was attached to the dead person himself; in that case, the nazirite becomes a primary source of impurity, and if a person touches him, that person becomes impure with seven-day impurity by Torah law.

Here the Gemara returns to Rav Huna’s distinction—according to Abaye—between impurity and entry, on the one hand, and impurity and impurity, on the other. The straightforward meaning of his statement is that in the very circumstance in which he is exempt for impurity and impurity, namely, when he did not add impurity to his impurity, Rav Huna holds that he is liable for impurity and entry. And we raise an objection:

when the nazirite was connected to the dead person itself; for then the nazirite becomes the father of the fathers of impurity, and if a person touches him, he becomes impure with seven-day impurity by Torah law.

Here the Gemara returns to the words of Rav Huna, who distinguished—according to Abaye—between impurity and entry, and impurity and impurity. The plain meaning of his intention is that in the same case in which he is exempt for impurity and impurity, namely, when he did not add impurity to his impurity, Rav Huna holds him liable for impurity and entry; and we raise an objection:

But impurity and impurity—not,

what then is the reason?

For he is becoming impure and remains so [he is already impure and has not added impurity to his impurity]. If so,

If so,

impurity

and entry as well

in the same manner: he was impure initially and did not add impurity to his impurity, why should he be liable for the entry?

He is becoming impure and remains so!

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Rav Huna’s distinction between impurity and entry, on the one hand, and impurity and impurity, on the other, does not mean that in the case of impurity and entry he is liable one after the other, whereas in the case of impurity and impurity he is not liable one after the other. Rather, this is what Rav Huna said:

Here, in a house

[in a tent containing a corpse], where he becomes liable for the entry, it is possible for a person to be liable for two offenses—for example, if he was not impure and entered the house, becoming impure and entering the tent simultaneously.

Here, in a field

where he did not enter the house, you will never find a case in which he is liable for two offenses, because it is impossible for him to become liable for two offenses simultaneously, even if he touched two corpses at once, and if he became impure and then became impure again, and they warned him between the first and second acts, he is not liable for the second impurity, since he was already impure.