Nazir 43a — the Talmud in English

And we still challenge this:

in the house

(in the tent containing the corpse)

also—

even when he was not impure at the outset, why is he liable to bring two offerings? After all, he is liable for entering only when he has brought the majority of his body inside the tent; and if so:

Once he brought his hand inside, it became impure

(as soon as he inserted a finger of his hand into the tent containing the corpse, he had already become impure),

when he enters all this much—

when he enters so far that he transgresses the prohibition against entering the tent containing the corpse, namely, when he enters with the majority of his body—he has already

become impure,

so why should he be liable for entering!?

Rather, Rabbi

Elazar said:

Indeed, if he

brought his hand close to the house,

that is, he first inserted his hand into the tent, then

there is liability on account of impurity

(he is liable), but

there is no liability on account of entry

(he is not liable for it), since he is already impure.

But

if he

brought his body close,

that is, he held his hands against his body, then

impurity and entry came together

(they came upon him simultaneously), and in this manner the Torah prohibited the entry.

The Gemara is still perplexed:

But is it possible that he did not first bring in his nose, thereby bringing impurity upon him?

Even when he enters in this manner, his nose enters the house first and he becomes impure, whereas you cannot hold him liable for entry until he has brought in the majority of his body. Why, then, should he be liable for entry after he has already become impure!?

Rather, Rava said:

Indeed, if he

brought in his head

first,

there is liability on account of impurity, but no liability on account of entry,

since he is already impure.

But if he

brought in his body

into the house, bending his head outside the house so that his nose would not enter first, then

impurity and entry come upon him together

(they come upon him simultaneously), and in this manner the Torah prohibited the entry.

And we still challenge this:

But is it possible that he did not first bring in a toe

(for surely it is impossible that he would not first insert a toe),

thereby bringing impurity upon him

(impurity descended upon him), so once again it should be impossible to hold him liable for entry!?

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

In this manner you can find a case in which impurity and entry come upon him simultaneously, and the Torah prohibited him on account of entry as well:

For example, when he entered

the nazir

in a chest, box, or cabinet

(various portable vessels that interpose before impurity) into the tent containing the corpse, so that he had not yet become impure, nor had he yet “entered” the tent containing the corpse, and then

his fellow came

and removed

from

above him—

with the nazir’s consent—

the covering

of the chest, thereby rendering the nazir impure , and he is also considered to have “entered” the tent containing the corpse. Thus,

impurity and entry come upon him together.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

For example, when the nazir entered

(the nazir entered)

while he was

the corpse was still

in the throes of death,

and its soul departed while he was sitting

(the soul of the dying person departed while the nazir was already sitting inside the house),

so that impurity and entry came upon him together

when the soul departed.

The section concerning the impurity of kohanim [Leviticus 21]:

“And the Lord said to Moses: Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: He shall not become impure for a dead person among his people, except for his close relative who is near to him: for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, or his brother; and for his virgin sister, who is near to him, who has not been married, for her he may become impure. He shall not become impure among his people, to profane him.”

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the section concerning the impurity of kohanim: “He shall not become impure among his people, to profane him”; therefore it states

“to profane him”

(the expression “profane”) to teach that he is not prohibited concerning him

until the time that he dies.

Rabbi says:

It is stated in the section concerning the nazir:

“He shall not become impure for them upon their death,”

and the Torah therefore stated “upon their death” to teach that he is not prohibited concerning him

until he dies,

actually, and not when he is meguyaad [full of wounds and cuts] and in the throes of death.

The Gemara explains:

What is the practical difference between them

(in what law do they disagree)? After all, even according to the first tanna, he is not prohibited concerning one who is meguyaad or in the throes of death, since he is not a corpse?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Indeed,

the manner of deriving the law

alone

is the difference between them—

that is, there is no practical halakhic difference between them. According to everyone, one in the throes of death and one who is meguyaad are excluded, since they have not yet died; the first tanna, however, derives this from “to profane him,” while Rabbi derives it from “upon their death.”

Reish Lakish said:

The one in the throes of death is the difference between them:

For

the one who says—

the first tanna—who excludes him

by “to profane him”:

even

the

one in the throes of death

is prohibited to them , because since “most people in the throes of death die,” he is considered a “corpse,” and the verse came only to exclude one who is meguyaad.

Whereas

the one who says—

Rabbi—who excludes him from

“upon their death”:

until he dies

—

no,

indeed, one who becomes impure through him transgresses; but concerning

one in the throes of death, he does not

receive a warning, and although “most people in the throes of death die,” since he has not yet died.

And we challenge this:

And according to the one who says

who excludes

by “to profane him”

and does not exclude one in the throes of death,

“upon their death” is written

and we should learn that one does not transgress until the person dies, and not while he is in the throes of death!?

And we answer: According to the one who says that we exclude him from “to profane him”—

it is needed

to write “upon their death”

for Rabbi’s teaching,

(for Rabbi’s other teaching from “upon their death”).

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says:

“Upon their death”

of all people,

he does not become impure

the nazir to them,

but he does become impure

the nazir to every person

when they suffer from leprosy or flux

(when they are afflicted with leprosy or have a flux, which render a person impure), because the nazir was warned only concerning impurity from a corpse. And we challenge this:

And

if so, this presents a difficulty

according to the one who says

“upon their death”

(according to Rabbi, who derives from “upon their death” that one who is meguyaad and one in the throes of death are excluded):

It is needed

for “upon their death”

to

teach

this principle

that they are permitted to become impure through one afflicted with leprosy!?

And we answer:

If so—if the verse came only to exclude one afflicted with leprosy—

the verse should have stated only:

“upon death,”

why

“upon their death”?

You may learn two things from it

(we hear two teachings from this word): to exclude one afflicted with leprosy, and to exclude one who is meguyaad or in the throes of death.

And we challenge this:

And according to the one who says

“upon their death,”

“to profane him” is written;

“to profane him”

and it implies that it is prohibited to become impure through one in the throes of death, who is called a corpse!?

And we answer: This verse did not come to include one in the throes of death as prohibited; rather,

“to profane him”

came for this purpose

:

one who is not already in a state of impurity

(impure)—the Torah warned him not to become impure;

this one is excluded—

since he has already become impure and is not adding impurity to his impurity — he does not transgress, since

he

is already

in a state of impurity.

And we challenge this:

And according to the one who says, from

“to profane him,”

it is needed—

for the verse “to profane him”—

for this principle,

to exclude one who is already in a state of impurity.

And we answer:

If so—if the verse came only to exclude one of these laws—

if it came only to exclude one of these laws—

the verse should have stated:

“to profane,”

why

“to profane him”?

You may learn two things from it:

to exclude one who is already in a state of impurity, and to teach that he is warned concerning one in the throes of death, who is called a “corpse.”

Meytivi

to Reish Lakish, who holds that becoming impure through one in the throes of death is prohibited:

From that which was taught in a beraita:

A person does not convey impurity until

his soul departs, even if he is meguyaad and even if he is in the throes of death. —

And

if so, this presents a difficulty

according to the one who says: from

“to profane him,”

and according to his view he is warned concerning one in the throes of death,

for it teaches that

even one in the throes of death

does not convey impurity!?

And we answer: Indeed,

with regard to conveying impurity,

one in the throes of death does not convey impurity

until his soul departs

(until his soul departs), and one does not transgress concerning him “he shall not become impure”; but

with regard to initiating

(profanation),

it has already begun

(he has already been profaned). That is, he does transgress “to profane him,” since it is as though the Torah had stated two separate prohibitions: “He shall not become impure” and “he shall not profane him.”