Nazir 43b — the Talmud in English

In the following teaching, the matters have also been explained according to the Rosh, because of the abridgment of the words of Tosafot in our sugya.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav:

A kohen whose

father's head was severed

and even though the head is before us,

does not become impure for him,

not for his body and not 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 relative who is near to him, for his mother, for his father, for his son, for his daughter, and for his brother,” and from what the verse said

“for his father,”

we learn:

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

Rav Hamnuna said to him

to Rav Hisda:

But if so, what about the one who was going in the valley of Aravot

[a son who went 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

[and is it so that his son would not become impure for him], since his father is not whole

!? He said to him,

Rav Hisda to Rav Hamnuna:

“A met mitzva”

you are saying,

meaning: 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 one may say that he is obligated concerning others,

if, concerning others, the kohen is obligated to become impure when the deceased is a met mitzva,

concerning his father, is it not all the more so

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

is it really so that

this

deceased—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 buriers,

but if

the deceased calls

the deceased

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

is

possessed of a son

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

Since he is going

the son

on the road

[since the son is traveling on the road],

he is considered as one who has no buriers,

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

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rav:

It was objected

from that which was taught in a beraita:

It is stated in the passage concerning the impurity of kohanim: “For only for his relative, and so forth, and for his virgin sister, and so forth, for her he shall become impure”; and therefore the verse 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

for a limb from her living body or for a limb from her corpse.

And why do we expound in this manner:

because he does not

become impure

even

for a limb from the living

of his father,

who is closer to him, and all the more so reason dictates that we should expound this concerning his sister.

But he does go back

even

for a bone the size of a barley-grain,

he explains it and proceeds.

What does it mean, “he does go back for a bone the size of a barley-grain”!?

Is it not that he was slightly deficient

[the father was missing a little—the same bone] at the time when he became impure for him, and the beraita comes to teach us: Once he has 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 thus learned that it was permitted for him to become impure for his father when he was slightly deficient, and the same law applies when his head was missing; but this is a difficulty against Rav !?

And we answer:

No,

it is not difficult, for

that

beraita

is the opinion of Rabbi Judah,

whereas Rav holds like another tanna brought at the end of the sugya.

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: “For her he shall become impure”—

“for her”

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

for

he does not become impure

even

for a limb from the living of his father,

who is closer to him, and all the more so for his sister—

but he does become impure for a limb from the corpse of his father

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

And we still raise an objection to Rav:

But it was taught by Rav Kahana, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

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

For her he shall become impure”

but he does not become impure for limbs—

excluding an olive-sized portion from the corpse

of his sister,

and an olive-sized portion of netzel

[the flesh of the corpse that decayed and liquefied, or the liquid issuing from the flesh of the corpse],

and a full ladle

[the fullness of a spoon]

of rekhev

[dust of decay] from the corpse.

One might have thought that he should not become impure

even

for the spine and the 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: “Say to the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a soul he shall not become impure among his people,” and it doubled

“Say and say,”

“Say and say,”

then

the verse has added for you another impurity

for which the kohen becomes impure; and what is it? The spine and skull, the majority of the number of her limbs, and the majority of her structure of his sister, for it is reasonable to expound this verse concerning his sister, regarding whom the verse limited him, that he does not become impure for her limbs.