Nazir 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

In the following discussion, the explanations are also presented according to the Rosh, due to the brevity of the Tosafot in our sugya.

Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said:

A kohen whose father’s

head was severed

and although the head is before us,

does not become impure for him,

neither for his body nor for his head.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

For

the verse says in the passage concerning the impurity of kohanim: “For only for his close relative who is nearest to him, for his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, and for his brother”; and from the fact that the verse says

“for his father,”

we learn:

when he is whole, but not when he is incomplete.

Rav Hamnuna said

to Rav Ḥisda:

If that is so, what about the one who was traveling in the valley of Aravot

[a son who was traveling with his father in a valley in which bandits were commonly found],

and the thieves severed his head

of his father [the bandits severed his father’s head],

and he died—

would he likewise not become impure for him

[would his son not become impure for him], since his father is not whole!?

Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Hamnuna: “

Are you speaking of a met mitzva

?”

That is to say: Although he does not become impure for him because he is his father, he should become impure for him because he is a met mitzva!?

But

now, if with regard to others he is obligated

if a kohen is obligated to become impure for others when they are a met mitzva,

with regard to his father, is it not all the more so

that he becomes impure for him if he is a met mitzva?

he becomes impure for him if he is an unattended dead person.

The Gemara objects:

But

is it so that

this

dead man—whose son is standing beside him and can hire others to bury him—

is he a met mitzva!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

Who is a met mitzva? Anyone who has no one to bury him,

but if the deceased

calls

and

others answer him,

meaning: If the deceased were able to call, he would have relatives who would answer him,

this is not a met mitzva,

because those relatives would attend to him or hire others to attend to him —

But

this deceased man

has a son

[he has a son capable of answering his father’s call] and can hire someone to attend to him; if so, he is not a “met mitzva,” so why should the son, who is a kohen, become impure for him, since he is not whole? And we answer:

Since he is traveling

the son

on the road

[because the son is traveling],

he is considered like one who has no buriers,

since he will not find anyone to hire on the road.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav:

Meytivi

from that which was taught in a beraita:

It is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of kohanim: “For only for his close relative … and for his virgin sister … for her he shall become impure.” The verse therefore added and said, “for her he shall become impure,” in order to teach:

For her—

for his sister when she is whole,

he becomes impure, but he does not become impure for her limbs,

whether for a limb severed from her while alive or for a limb severed from her after death.

And why do we expound the verse in this manner?

Because he does not

become impure

even

for a limb severed from the living

of his father,

who is closer to him; all the more so does reason dictate that we should expound this way with regard to his sister. But he does turn back

even

for a bone the size of a barley grain,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

What does it mean that he turns back for a bone the size of a barley grain!?

Is it not referring to a minor deficiency

[that the father was missing a small part—the particular bone] at the time he became impure for him, and the beraita comes to teach us: Since he had already become impure for his father, he again becomes impure even for a bone the size of a barley grain in order to bury it].

We have therefore learned that it was permitted for him to become impure for his father when a small part was missing, and the same should apply when his head was missing; this poses a difficulty to Rav!? And we answer:

We have therefore learned that it was permitted to become impure for his father when he was missing a small part, and the same should apply when his head was missing. This is a difficulty against Rav!?

No,

there is no difficulty, because

that

beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

whereas Rav follows another tanna cited at the end of the sugya.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: “For her”—

he becomes impure for her, but he does not become impure for her limbs,

since

he does not become impure

even

for a limb severed from the living of his father,

who is closer to him, and all the more so not for his sister—

But he does become impure for a limb severed from the dead of his father

by turning back, when he had already become impure for the rest of the body; and in this manner he likewise becomes impure for his sister.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to raise an objection to Rav:

But Rav Kahana taught in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

[that is, in the beraita of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov]: “

For her”

but he does not become impure for limbs—

excluding an olive-bulk of flesh from the dead

of his sister,

and an olive-bulk of netzel

[the flesh of the dead that has putrefied and liquefied, or fluid issuing from the flesh of the dead]

and a full ladleful of rekhev

[a full spoonful]

of decay

[the dust of decomposition]

from the dead.

One might have thought that he may not become impure

even

for the spinal column and skull

of his sister,

and for the majority of her structure

of his sister [two lower legs and one thigh, or two thighs and one lower leg],

and for the majority of her number

[or for the majority of the number of her limbs]!?

When

the verse

says: “Speak to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead person he shall not become impure among his people,” and it repeats

“Speak and say,”

the verse

has added another form of impurity for you

for which the kohen does become impure. And what is it? The spinal column and skull, the majority of the number of her limbs, and the majority of her structure, in the case of his sister, since it is reasonable to expound this verse with regard to his sister, whom the verse excluded from impurity for her limbs.

adds another form of impurity for you

for which the kohen does become impure: the spine and skull, the majority of her limbs, and the majority of her bodily structure, of his sister. For it is reasonable to interpret this verse as referring to his sister, concerning whom the verse excluded becoming impure for her limbs.