Nazir 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

And necessarily,

what is the meaning of: “

to his father and to his mother

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

It is only to his father and to his mother that he may not become impure, but he does become impure

the nazir

to a met mitzva.

Rabbi Yishmael continues to explain: And from where do I say that the phrase “to his father and to his mother he shall not become impure” is superfluous and intended to teach the law of a met mitzva? Perhaps the verse “He shall not come upon any dead person” speaks of distant relatives, and the verse needed “to his father and to his mother” for its own matter?

And Rabbi Yishmael explains: Indeed, it is superfluous, because

before the verse states

“to his father and to his mother he shall not become impure,” teaching that he may not become impure to relatives,

I have

a way to derive this law

by means of [

the hermeneutical principle of a binyan av, which explains what the Torah stated: “He shall not come upon a dead person.” ]

And this is how I would derive it:

General prohibitions were stated, “He shall not come upon any dead persons”

—

with regard to the High Priest.

General prohibitions were stated, “He shall not come upon a dead person”

—

with regard to the nazir.

Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to the High Priest

apply even to relatives, and the phrase “to his father and to his mother he shall not become impure” that is stated with regard to him is intended to teach:

He may not become impure to his father, but he does become impure to a met mitzva

as was explained above.

So too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to the nazir

apply both to distant relatives and to close relatives, while the phrase “to his father and to his mother he shall not become impure” that is stated with regard to him is intended to teach:

He may not become impure to his father, but he does become impure to a met mitzva.

Rabbi Yishmael continues to explain:

Or go instead by this route!?

That is to say: From where may we derive the “general prohibitions” stated with regard to the nazir from the general prohibitions stated with regard to the High Priest, and thereby prohibit him from becoming impure to relatives? One could say otherwise:

General prohibitions were stated, “He shall not become impure for a person among his people”

—

with regard to an ordinary priest.

General prohibitions were stated, “He shall not come upon a dead person”

—

with regard to the nazir.

Just as the general prohibitions stated with regard to an ordinary priest permit him to become impure to his father, so too, the general prohibitions stated with regard to the nazir permit him to become impure to his father;

and consequently, “to his father and to his mother, etc., he shall not become impure” is not superfluous for the purpose of teaching the law of a met mitzva, since it is necessary to prohibit the nazir from becoming impure to relatives!?

Therefore,

the verse states: “

to his father and to his mother he shall not become impure,” in order to teach:

He shall not become impure to his father and to his mother, but he does become impure to a met mitzva.

But since we must derive the law from an ordinary priest and not from the High Priest,

this is needed

by the phrase “to his father and to his mother, etc., he shall not become impure”

to say that he may not become impure to his father!?

How, then, can we derive from it the law of a met mitzva?

Rather,

“to his father”

indeed comes

to say that he may not become impure to his father.

And “to his brother” comes to say:

He may not become impure to his brother; but he does become impure to a met mitzva;

for “to his brother” is certainly superfluous. Since the verse taught us that he may not become impure to his father, as is the case with the High Priest, we can consequently derive the general prohibitions from the High Priest and not from an ordinary priest, and we will know that the nazir may not become impure to his brother.

And the Gemara continues to explain the verse according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael: “

And to his mother”

which is stated with regard to the nazir comes

for a gezera shava, in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi

to teach that the High Priest becomes impure to a leper. “

And to his sister”

which is stated with regard to the nazir comes

for that which was taught:

As it was taught: “

To his sister”

which is stated with regard to the nazir—

what is the meaning of this?

If it is not needed for the nazir, apply it to another matter:

If one was on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son,

which are mitzvot for which one is liable to receive karet,

and he heard that

a dead person had died for him [one of his relatives had died], and he is obligated to become impure to relatives, since the Torah stated in the passage concerning the impurity of priests: “And to his sister, a virgin, who is close to him, he may become impure,”

one might have thought that he may become impure

to them—

You say [

say on your own]: Surely he

may not become impure,

for the positive mitzva of becoming impure to relatives does not override the positive mitzva of the Paschal offering or circumcision, which entail karet.

One might have thought that he may not become impure—

the one who is on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son—even

to a met mitzva; the verse states “

to his sister”—

It is only to his sister that he may not become impure,

when he is performing the Paschal offering or circumcising his son, even though he was commanded concerning her, “to her he may become impure”;

but to a met mitzva he does become impure,

even though this thereby nullifies the mitzva of the Paschal offering or the mitzva of circumcision.

Rabbi Akiva

disagreed with Rabbi Yishmael and

said

with regard to the explanation of the verse concerning the nazir: “He shall not come upon a dead person; to his father, to his mother, to his brother, and to his sister he shall not become impure to them when they die”: That which is stated, “

upon a person

etc., he shall not come”

refers to distant relatives;

that is to say: Had the verse stated only “he shall not come upon a person,” I would have said that the Torah warned the nazir only with regard to distant relatives.

And therefore the verse added and stated: “Upon a

dead

person he shall not come”

refers to close relatives,

that is to say: in order to include close relatives.

If so, the entire verse dealing with relatives is superfluous; rather: “

To his father and to his mother” was written in order to teach:

He may not become impure to his father and to his mother, but he does become impure to a met mitzva.

It is not sufficient for the verse to specify only his father or only his mother, because then I would say: The Torah wrote either “his father” or “his mother” in order to say that he may not become impure specifically to his father but may become impure to his mother, or specifically to his mother but may become impure to his father, as the Gemara explains the distinction between them below. “

To his brother”

comes to teach:

If he was

also

both a High Priest and a nazir,

even so,

he may not become impure to his brother, but he does become impure to a met mitzva. “

To his sister”

comes to teach:

As it was taught: If one was on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering and to circumcise his son,

etc.; one might have thought that he may not become impure to a met mitzva; the verse states: “And to his sister.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

And according to Rabbi Akiva,

who does not find it sufficient, with regard to the nazir, to state only his father or only his mother, then with regard to the High Priest as well, had the Torah not stated “to his father and to his mother,” we would not have known one from the other, and consequently, “to his mother” stated with regard to the High Priest is not available; and if so:

From where does Rabbi derive the gezera shava? [

from where does Rabbi Akiva derive it? There is no available word here—neither with regard to the High Priest nor with regard to the nazir—from which we can derive this gezera shava one from the other and teach that a High Priest becomes impure to a leper! And we answer:

Since the Master said

that is to say, Rabbi Akiva—from what the Torah stated, “And to his brother”:

If he was both a High Priest and a nazir, he may not become impure to his brother, but he does become impure to a met mitzva—

if so,

what difference is there between a High Priest alone and a nazir who is also a High Priest?

That is to say: All the more so, a High Priest alone becomes impure to a met mitzva. Consequently, the Torah does not need to write with regard to the High Priest “to his father and to his mother” in order to teach that he becomes impure to a met mitzva, and therefore it is available for deriving a gezera shava from the nazir, teaching that he becomes impure to a leper.

Here the Gemara returns to the view of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that “and to his brother” comes to teach only that a nazir may become impure to a met mitzva, and asks:

And according to Rabbi Yishmael,

a High Priest who is

also

a nazir—

who becomes impure to a met mitzva—

from where does he derive it [

from where does he derive this]? And we answer: Rabbi Yishmael holds that no special verse is needed to permit a nazir who is also a High Priest to become impure, since we already know that a nazir is permitted to become impure to a met mitzva and that a High Priest is permitted to do so. In his view:

Since the Merciful One permitted one prohibition [

since the Torah permitted one prohibition ]

with regard to a met mitzva, what difference is there whether it is one prohibition

of a nazir or a High Priest,

or whether it is two prohibitions

of a nazir and a High Priest together?

And we ask: If so, “

his sister”—

which comes to teach about one who is on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son—

why do I need it?

Since even two prohibitions are overridden in the presence of a met mitzva, the same should apply to a positive mitzva that entails karet!?

And we answer: Had the verse not stated “and to his sister,”

it might enter your mind to say: When the Merciful One permitted impurity for a met mitzva,

only

in the case of a nazir and a priest, whose prohibition is a prohibition of a negative mitzva

that does not entail karet,

is this so

that the Torah permitted only negative prohibitions that do not entail karet.

But as for circumcision and the Paschal offering, which are

positive mitzvot that entail

karet,

say:

He may not become impure to a met mitzva.

Therefore,

it teaches us “and to his sister,” that even these mitzvot are overridden in the presence of a met mitzva.

“and for his sister,” that even these commandments are overridden in the presence of an unattended corpse.