Nazir 48b — the Talmud in English

And necessarily,

what is the purpose of the verse:

“for his father and for his mother”

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

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

the nazir

for a met mitzva.

Rabbi Yishmael continues to explain: And from where do I say that “for his father and for his mother he shall not become impure” is superfluous, in order to teach about a met mitzva? For perhaps “He shall not come upon any dead persons” speaks of distant persons, and the verse required “for his father and for his mother” for its own matter?

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

before the verse says

“for his father and for his mother he shall not become impure,” to teach that he does not become impure for relatives,

I have

to derive this law

by means of a legal derivation [

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

And this is how I will derive it:

General statements were said, “He shall not come upon any dead persons” —

“He shall not come upon any dead persons” —

with regard to the High Priest.

And general statements were said,

“He shall not come upon a dead person” —

with regard to the nazir.

Just as the general statements said with regard to the High Priest

include even relatives, and that which the verse said concerning him, “For his father and for his mother he shall not become impure,” is in order to teach:

For his father he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva,

as was explained above.

So too, the general statements said with regard to the nazir

include both distant persons and relatives, whereas that which the verse said concerning him, “For his father and for his mother he shall not become impure,” is in order to teach:

For his father he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva.

Rabbi Yishmael continues to explain:

Or proceed along this path!?

That is to say: From where can one derive the “general statements” said with regard to the nazir from the general statements said with regard to the High Priest, and thereby prohibit relatives? For it can be said otherwise:

General statements were said,

“He shall not become impure for a person among his people” —

with regard to an ordinary priest.

And general statements were said,

“He shall not come upon a dead person” —

with regard to the nazir.

Just as in the general statements said with regard to an ordinary priest, he becomes impure for his father, so too in the general statements said with regard to the nazir, he becomes impure for his father,

and if so, “For his father and for his mother, and so on, he shall not become impure” is not superfluous in order to teach about a met mitzva, for it is needed to prohibit relatives to the nazir!?

Therefore

the verse teaches:

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

For his father and for his mother he shall not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva.

But since we have to derive it from an ordinary priest and not from a High Priest, if so,

it is needed

for “For his father and for his mother, and so on, he shall not become impure”

to say that he does not become impure for his father!?

And how will we derive from this the law of a met mitzva?

Rather,

“for his father”

indeed comes

to say that he does not become impure for his father.

And “for his brother” comes to say:

For his brother he does not become impure; but for a met mitzva he becomes impure,

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

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

“And for his mother,”

which is stated with regard to the nazir, comes

for a gzera shava, in accordance with Rabbi

to teach concerning a High Priest that he becomes impure for a person afflicted with tzaraat.

“And for his sister,”

which is stated with regard to the nazir, comes

in accordance with that which was taught:

For it was taught:

“For his sister”

which is stated with regard to the nazir,

what is its purpose?

If it does not apply to the nazir, assign it to another matter:

If one was going to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son,

which are mitzvot for which there is 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 for relatives, for the Torah said in the passage concerning the impurity of priests: “And for his sister, a virgin; for her he shall become impure,”

one might think that he should become impure

for them —

You say [say on your own]: Certainly he

say on your own]: Surely he

shall not become impure,

for the positive commandment of impurity for relatives does not override the positive commandment of the Paschal offering and circumcision, which involve karet.

One might think that he shall not become impure —

the one going to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son — even

for a met mitzva; the verse teaches

“for his sister” —

It is only for his sister that he does not become impure,

the one performing the Paschal offering and the one circumcising his son, even though he was commanded concerning her, “For her he shall become impure”;

but for a met mitzva he becomes impure,

even though through this the mitzva of the Paschal offering or the mitzva of circumcision will be nullified.

Rabbi Akiva

disagreed with Rabbi Yishmael and

says

in his interpretation of the verse concerning the nazir, “He shall not come upon a dead person, for his father, for his mother, for his brother, and for his sister; he shall not become impure for them in their death”: That which is stated,

“upon a dead person

and so on, he shall not come,”

refers to distant persons,

that is to say: If the verse had said only “he shall not come upon a person,” I would have said that the Torah warned the nazir only concerning distant persons.

And therefore the verse added and said: “He shall not come upon a

dead

person,”

refers to relatives,

that is to say: In order to include relatives.

And if so, the entire verse dealing with relatives is superfluous; rather:

“For his father and for his mother” was written in order to teach:

For his father and for his mother he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva.

And it is not sufficient for the verse to specify only his father or only his mother, since then I would say: The reason the Torah wrote his father or his mother was to say that specifically for his father he does not become impure, but for his mother he becomes impure; or specifically for his mother he does not become impure, but for his father he becomes impure, as the Gemara explains the distinction between them below.

“For his brother”

comes to teach:

If he was

also

a High Priest and he was a nazir,

even so,

for his brother he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva.

“For his sister”

comes to teach:

In accordance with that which was taught: If one was going to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son,

and so on: One might think that he should not become impure for a met mitzva; the verse teaches: “And for his sister.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

And according to Rabbi Akiva,

who is not satisfied with only his father or only his mother in the case of a nazir, if so, even with regard to a High Priest, had the Torah not said “for his father and for his mother,” we would not have known one from the other, and it follows that “for his mother,” which is stated with regard to the High Priest, is not set aside; and if so:

From where does he derive Rabbi’s gzera shava [from where does Rabbi Akiva derive it],

for there is no set-aside word here — neither with regard to the High Priest nor with regard to the nazir — from which we could derive this gzera shava, and teach that a High Priest becomes impure for a person afflicted with tzaraat? And we answer:

Since the Master said —

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

If he was a High Priest and a nazir, for his brother he does not become impure, but he becomes impure for a met mitzva —

If so:

What difference is there between a High Priest by himself and a nazir and High Priest,

that is to say: All the more so, a High Priest by himself becomes impure for a met mitzva. And if so, the Torah does not need to write with regard to a High Priest “for his father and for his mother” in order to teach that he becomes impure for a met mitzva, and therefore it is set aside, in order to derive by a gzera shava from nazir that a High Priest becomes impure for a person afflicted with tzaraat.

And here the Gemara returns to the view of Rabbi Yishmael, who maintains that “and for his brother” comes to teach about the permission of a met mitzva only for a nazir; and it raises an objection:

And according to Rabbi Yishmael —

a High Priest and he is

also

a nazir —

who becomes impure for a met mitzva —

from where does he derive it [from where does he derive it]!? And we answer: Rabbi Yishmael reasons: No special verse is needed to permit a nazir and a High Priest together, since we already know that the nazir is permitted for a met mitzva, and likewise a High Priest; for according to him:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael holds that no special verse is needed to permit a person who is both a nazirite and a High Priest to become impure for an unattended corpse, since we already know that a nazirite is permitted to do so 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 raise an objection: If so,

“his sister” —

which comes to teach about one going to slaughter his Paschal offering and circumcise his son —

why do I need it,

for since even two prohibitions are overridden in favor of a met mitzva, so too the same law applies to a positive commandment involving karet?!

And we answer: Had the verse not said “and for his sister,”

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

only

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

which does not involve karet,

it is

[the Torah permitted only negative-commandment prohibitions that do not involve karet].

But circumcision and the Paschal offering, which

are positive commandments involving

karet,

they are, one might say:

He shall not become impure for a met mitzva.

Therefore

it teaches us

“and for his sister,” that even these are overridden in favor of a met mitzva.