Nazir 48a — the Talmud in English

And

for this reason the verse said: “And

his mother

he shall not become impure”—which too is superfluous, for we already knew that a High Priest is forbidden to become impure to relatives—it is available

for a gezera shava, and

to teach

according to Rabbi—

As it was taught:

Rabbi says:

It is stated concerning a nazirite To his father, and to his mother, and to his brother, and to his sister, he shall not become impure to them when they die.”

The verse added the word “when they die” to what was said, “He shall not approach a dead person,” in order to teach: only

when they die

of any person

does he not become impure

to them—the nazirite.

But he does become impure

to

their leprosy and their gonorrhea

of any person. That is, it is permitted for the nazirite to become impure to a leper and to one with a flux, who render a person impure.

And I have only

that a nazirite becomes impure to a leper?

With regard to a High Priest, from where

that he becomes impure to a leper?

You say: The verse would not say

the word

“his mother”

with regard to a High Priest,

who does not become impure to her.

For

behold,

there is no need for the verse to state it

[the verse does not need to say it].

For

it is a kal va-chomer

that the High Priest does not become impure to his mother; and we learn it as follows:

An ordinary priest, whom the Torah permitted to become impure to his brother, it permitted him to become impure only to his brother from his father. But with regard to his brother from his mother, who is not his brother from his father, the Torah did not permit him to become impure.

And we learn this law by a gezera shava from the sons of Jacob: here it is said, “his brother,” and it is said concerning the sons of Jacob [Genesis 42:13], “Your servants are twelve brothers; we are sons of one man.” Just as the sons of Jacob were brothers from one father, so too “his brother,” which is stated here, means a brother from his father.

And if, in a case in which an ordinary priest becomes impure to his brother from his father, a High Priest does not become impure to his father,

in a case in which an ordinary priest does not become impure to his brother from his mother, is it not an inference that a High Priest does not become impure to his mother?

That is: Behold, relatives on the father’s side [“the father’s family”] are superior to relatives on the mother’s side, for although an ordinary priest does become impure to the relationship of a brother, nevertheless he becomes impure to that relationship only when it is from the father’s family, and not from the mother’s family. If so, we can learn by a kal va-chomer that if the High Priest does not become impure to the relationship of a father, which is from the father’s family, all the more so he should not become impure to the relationship of a mother [which is a relationship equal to that of a father] when it is from the mother’s family.

And

if you have learned from the inference

[and if you can learn by a kal va-chomer] that the High Priest does not become impure to his mother, then

what is the need to state

“his mother”

with regard to a High Priest?

Rather, certainly

it is available,

superfluous and set aside in order

to make an analogy and derive from it a gezera shava:

It is stated

“his mother”

with regard to a nazirite, and it is stated

“his mother”

with regard to a High Priest.

Just as

that is, like

“his mother”

stated with regard to a nazirite,

only

when they die

does he

not become impure

to them,

but he does become impure to their leprosy and their gonorrhea.

So too

“his mother”

stated with regard to a High Priest,

only

when they die

does he

not become impure

to them,

but he does become impure to their leprosy and their gonorrhea.

And the Gemara continues to explain the source for permitting impurity from an unattended corpse:

We have found

behold, we have found a source for

a High Priest who becomes impure to an unattended corpse,

from what is said concerning him, “to his father,” which is superfluous in order to teach that he becomes impure to an unattended corpse, as explained.

But

with regard to a nazirite, from where

that he too becomes impure to an unattended corpse?

And the Gemara explains that the permission for impurity from an unattended corpse for a nazirite is disputed by Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva.

As it was taught:

It is written: “

All the days that he separates himself to the Lord

he shall not approach a dead person”—

Had the verse said “He shall not approach a person,” and had it not said “He shall not approach a dead person,”

I would understand

[I would learn from here]

even the person of an animal

[a carcass], which also renders impure,

is included

in the meaning that the nazirite is forbidden to become impure to it, since it too is called a person,

as it is like that which is stated: “

He who strikes the person of an animal”—therefore

the verse

teaches: “

He shall not approach a dead person.”

The verse added and said “dead,” in order to teach that

with regard to a human person

alone

does the verse speak.

For an animal is not called “a dead person.”

Rabbi Ishmael says: There is no need

to learn that the nazirite is permitted to become impure to a carcass from what the verse said, “dead.”

For

it

the verse

says: “

A dead person

he shall not approach”

the tent in which the dead person is.

You have thus learned:

with regard to persons who render impure through entering

the tent alone

does the verse speak.

But a carcass does not render impure in a tent.

And Rabbi Ishmael continues and interprets the verse: For this reason the verse said: “He shall not become impure to his father and to his mother” —which is superfluous, for one can learn that he does not become impure to them from “He shall not approach a dead person.” -

in order to teach: only

to his father and to his mother does the nazirite not become impure

the nazirite.

But he does become impure to an unattended corpse!

And Rabbi Ishmael adds and explains:

Before the verse says

“He shall not become impure to his father and to his mother” in order to teach that the nazirite becomes impure to an unattended corpse,

I have a ruling.

That is: Why do I need a verse for an unattended corpse? For it can be learned by a kal va-chomer!?

And if a High Priest, whose sanctity is an everlasting sanctity,

nevertheless

becomes impure

to

an unattended corpse,

a nazirite, whose sanctity is not an everlasting sanctity, is it not an inference that he becomes impure

to

an unattended corpse?

And Rabbi Ishmael resolves the need for the verse, for the kal va-chomer can be refuted:

No.

If you say this with regard to a High Priest,

who becomes impure to an unattended corpse because it is lenient for him,

since he does not bring an offering for his impurity,

can you say this with regard to a nazirite,

who is stringent,

who brings an offering for his impurity?

And if so, I would say:

Since he brings an offering for his impurity, he should not become impure to an unattended corpse.

Therefore

the verse teaches

with regard to a nazirite: “

To his father and to his mother

he shall not become impure,” in order to teach:

but

he does become impure

to

an unattended corpse.

And Rabbi Ishmael continues to interpret:

Or, that is: From where do I say that the verse “He shall not become impure to his father and to his mother” comes to teach that a nazirite becomes impure to an unattended corpse?

And perhaps the verse comes to say that

he does not become impure

to

the nazirite only

his father and his mother, but he does become impure

the nazirite

to other dead persons.

And Rabbi Ishmael explains:

You say,

behold,

it is a kal va-chomer

that the nazirite does not become impure to other dead persons.

For

if an ordinary priest, who becomes impure to relatives, does not become impure to other dead persons,

a nazirite, who does not become impure to relatives, is it not an inference that he should not become impure to other dead persons?