Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Nazir 47
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים וְנִטְמָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו וְיִטְהָר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר.
MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל אַחַר מְלֹאת שִׁבְעָה סוֹתֵר! אָמַר רַב: מַאי ״סוֹתֵר״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — סוֹתֵר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו.
GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says that this negates the entire tally. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say (16b): With regard to any nazirite who became ritually impure after the completion of his term, this negates only seven days. Rav said: What does: Negates, that Rabbi Eliezer said in the mishna here mean? It means that his impurity negates all his offerings. Rabbi Eliezer did not mean that the nazirite must count his entire term of naziriteship afresh; rather, he must bring all his offerings a second time, including the one whose blood was sprinkled before he became impure.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, as the mishna later teaches: And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. Learn from here that they disagree only with regard to the offerings, but not the naziriteship itself.
וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנְּזָרֵק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּהָ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר אֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין לִקְרוֹבֵיהֶן, אֲבָל מִיטַּמְּאִין לְמֵת מִצְוָה. הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.
MISHNA: A High Priest and a nazirite may not become ritually impure even to bury their deceased relatives. However, they become impure to bury a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. If one of them comes across the corpse of a Jew, and there is nobody else available to bury it, he must bury the body. If a High Priest and a nazirite were walking along the way and they found a met mitzva, and one of them can tend to the burial by himself, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the High Priest become impure, and do not let the nazirite become impure. And the Rabbis say: Let the nazirite become impure, and do not let even a common priest become impure.
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן — שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר — שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר — שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן — שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם.
Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: It is preferable to let the priest become impure, as he does not bring an offering for his impurity, and do not let the nazirite become impure, as he brings an offering for his impurity. The Rabbis said to him: On the contrary, let the nazirite become impure, as his sanctity is not permanent, and do not let a priest become impure, as his sanctity is permanent.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר, הַאי סָבַר: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עָדִיף, וְהַאי סָבַר: נָזִיר עָדִיף.
GEMARA: In light of the mishna’s dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, the Gemara compares the status of various individuals. Granted, with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite, one can explain the dispute as follows. This Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is preferable that a High Priest remain ritually pure, as his sanctity is permanent. And this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is preferable that a nazirite remain ritually pure, as he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.
מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה
Additionally, if the two walking together were a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, as was performed during the First Temple period,
וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה — מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְאִילּוּ מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — אֵין מֵבִיא.
and a High Priest of many garments, i.e., one who was not anointed with oil but who was sanctified by wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, it is preferable that the one who was anointed with the anointing oil remain ritually pure. The Gemara explains: As a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot, i.e., if an anointed priest ruled erroneously with regard to a prohibition that if a Jew transgressed it he would be liable to bring a sin-offering, he brings a bull for his sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:3–12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.
מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים עָדִיף, דִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה, וְאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר — לָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה הוּא.
In a case where a former anointed High Priest, i.e., a priest who had temporarily substituted for a High Priest, is walking together with one of many garments, it is preferable that the one who wears many garments remain ritually pure. The reason is that a High Priest of many garments still performs the service, whereas a former anointed High Priest is no longer able to perform the service.
עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ וְעָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ — עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ הַאי חֲזִי לַעֲבוֹדָה לְמָחָר, וְאִילּוּ עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ לֹא חֲזִי לָעֲבוֹדָה.
In a case where an anointed High Priest who temporarily left his role due to his seminal emission is walking with a former anointed High Priest who left his role due to his blemish, it is preferable that the former High Priest who left due to his seminal emission remain ritually pure, as this one, the High Priest who experienced an emission, is fit for the Temple service the following day, while the former anointed High Priest who left due to his blemish is no longer fit for the service at all (see Leviticus 21:16–24).
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וּסְגָן, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לְמִלְחָמָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא סְגָן עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לַעֲבוֹדָה?
§ The above cases are all easily resolved and are mentioned merely to introduce the following inquiries, for which there are no obvious answers. A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה לִסְגָן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — יִטַּמֵּא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא הַסְּגָן.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure.
וְהָתַנְיָא: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה קוֹדֵם לִסְגָן! אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְעִנְיַן הַחֲיוֹתוֹ — מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף, מַאי טַעְמָא — דִּתְלוּ בֵּיהּ רַבִּים,
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.
וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה סְגָן עֲדִיף. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה תִּקְּנוּ סְגָן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — שֶׁאִם אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל הֲרֵי נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו.
But with regard to ritual impurity, it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Sages institute a deputy for the High Priest? So that if a disqualification befalls the High Priest, his deputy can enter the Temple and serve in his stead. The deputy High Priest cannot fulfill this function if he is allowed to become ritually impure.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר כִּי קָא אָזְלִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל חַד חַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי אִינּוּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
The Gemara turns its attention to the halakha of the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite who are walking together and find a met mitzva, in which case one of them must become impure. However, it is evident that if each of them is walking separately, they are able, i.e., they are required, to become impure. From where are these matters derived? From where is it learned that a High Priest and a nazirite, who are prohibited from becoming impure even to bury their relatives, must nevertheless become impure to bury a met mitzva?
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל נַפְשׁוֹת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״, בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִי בִּרְחוֹקִים — קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהוּא מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים? אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11). With regard to what bodies is the verse speaking? If it is referring to distant people, i.e., non-relatives, that halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his close family members, may not become impure to bury distant people, then with regard to a High Priest, who does not become impure even to bury close members of his family, is it not logical that he does not become impure to bury distant people? Rather, the verse is speaking of close family members, and it prohibits a High Priest from becoming impure to bury any person, even his relatives.
וּלְאָבִיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, הָא מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.
The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: “Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase “for his father” teaches: It is to bury his father that he may not become ritually impure, from which it may be inferred that he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
New York, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Bronx, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Nazir 47
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים וְנִטְמָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו וְיִטְהָר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה. וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר.
MISHNA: With regard to one on whose behalf the blood of one of his nazirite offerings was sprinkled on the altar, and he became ritually impure before bringing the rest of his offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: His impurity negates the entire tally, and he remains a nazirite. And the Rabbis say: Let him bring the rest of his offerings and be purified. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: An incident occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod who was a nazirite, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and told her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סוֹתֵר אֶת הַכֹּל. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל אַחַר מְלֹאת שִׁבְעָה סוֹתֵר! אָמַר רַב: מַאי ״סוֹתֵר״ נָמֵי דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — סוֹתֵר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו.
GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says that this negates the entire tally. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say (16b): With regard to any nazirite who became ritually impure after the completion of his term, this negates only seven days. Rav said: What does: Negates, that Rabbi Eliezer said in the mishna here mean? It means that his impurity negates all his offerings. Rabbi Eliezer did not mean that the nazirite must count his entire term of naziriteship afresh; rather, he must bring all his offerings a second time, including the one whose blood was sprinkled before he became impure.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, as the mishna later teaches: And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. Learn from here that they disagree only with regard to the offerings, but not the naziriteship itself.
וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּמִרְיָם הַתַּרְמוֹדִית שֶׁנְּזָרֵק עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים, וּבָאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּהָ עַל בִּתָּהּ שֶׁהָיְתָה מְסוּכֶּנֶת, וְהָלְכָה וּמָצְאָה שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תָּבִיא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְתִטְהָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara cites the rest of the mishna, which also indicates that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the offerings. And an incident also occurred involving Miriam of Tarmod, that the blood of one of her offerings was sprinkled on her behalf, and they came and notified her that her daughter was mortally ill. And she went and found that her daughter was dead, and thereby contracted impurity. And the Rabbis said: Let her bring the rest of her offerings and be purified. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר אֵין מִיטַּמְּאִין לִקְרוֹבֵיהֶן, אֲבָל מִיטַּמְּאִין לְמֵת מִצְוָה. הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.
MISHNA: A High Priest and a nazirite may not become ritually impure even to bury their deceased relatives. However, they become impure to bury a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. If one of them comes across the corpse of a Jew, and there is nobody else available to bury it, he must bury the body. If a High Priest and a nazirite were walking along the way and they found a met mitzva, and one of them can tend to the burial by himself, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let the High Priest become impure, and do not let the nazirite become impure. And the Rabbis say: Let the nazirite become impure, and do not let even a common priest become impure.
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן — שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר — שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: יִטַּמֵּא נָזִיר — שֶׁאֵין קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם, וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא כֹּהֵן — שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ קְדוּשַּׁת עוֹלָם.
Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: It is preferable to let the priest become impure, as he does not bring an offering for his impurity, and do not let the nazirite become impure, as he brings an offering for his impurity. The Rabbis said to him: On the contrary, let the nazirite become impure, as his sanctity is not permanent, and do not let a priest become impure, as his sanctity is permanent.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר, הַאי סָבַר: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עָדִיף, וְהַאי סָבַר: נָזִיר עָדִיף.
GEMARA: In light of the mishna’s dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, the Gemara compares the status of various individuals. Granted, with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite, one can explain the dispute as follows. This Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is preferable that a High Priest remain ritually pure, as his sanctity is permanent. And this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that it is preferable that a nazirite remain ritually pure, as he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.
מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה
Additionally, if the two walking together were a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, as was performed during the First Temple period,
וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה — מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְאִילּוּ מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — אֵין מֵבִיא.
and a High Priest of many garments, i.e., one who was not anointed with oil but who was sanctified by wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, it is preferable that the one who was anointed with the anointing oil remain ritually pure. The Gemara explains: As a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot, i.e., if an anointed priest ruled erroneously with regard to a prohibition that if a Jew transgressed it he would be liable to bring a sin-offering, he brings a bull for his sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:3–12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.
מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים עָדִיף, דִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים — עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה, וְאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר — לָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה הוּא.
In a case where a former anointed High Priest, i.e., a priest who had temporarily substituted for a High Priest, is walking together with one of many garments, it is preferable that the one who wears many garments remain ritually pure. The reason is that a High Priest of many garments still performs the service, whereas a former anointed High Priest is no longer able to perform the service.
עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ וְעָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ — עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ עָדִיף, דְּאִילּוּ הַאי חֲזִי לַעֲבוֹדָה לְמָחָר, וְאִילּוּ עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ לֹא חֲזִי לָעֲבוֹדָה.
In a case where an anointed High Priest who temporarily left his role due to his seminal emission is walking with a former anointed High Priest who left his role due to his blemish, it is preferable that the former High Priest who left due to his seminal emission remain ritually pure, as this one, the High Priest who experienced an emission, is fit for the Temple service the following day, while the former anointed High Priest who left due to his blemish is no longer fit for the service at all (see Leviticus 21:16–24).
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וּסְגָן, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לְמִלְחָמָה, אוֹ דִּלְמָא סְגָן עֲדִיף — דַּחֲזֵי לַעֲבוֹדָה?
§ The above cases are all easily resolved and are mentioned merely to introduce the following inquiries, for which there are no obvious answers. A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה לִסְגָן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — יִטַּמֵּא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא הַסְּגָן.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure.
וְהָתַנְיָא: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה קוֹדֵם לִסְגָן! אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְעִנְיַן הַחֲיוֹתוֹ — מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף, מַאי טַעְמָא — דִּתְלוּ בֵּיהּ רַבִּים,
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.
וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה סְגָן עֲדִיף. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: לָמָּה תִּקְּנוּ סְגָן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — שֶׁאִם אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל הֲרֵי נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו.
But with regard to ritual impurity, it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Sages institute a deputy for the High Priest? So that if a disqualification befalls the High Priest, his deputy can enter the Temple and serve in his stead. The deputy High Priest cannot fulfill this function if he is allowed to become ritually impure.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר כִּי קָא אָזְלִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל חַד חַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי אִינּוּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
The Gemara turns its attention to the halakha of the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite who are walking together and find a met mitzva, in which case one of them must become impure. However, it is evident that if each of them is walking separately, they are able, i.e., they are required, to become impure. From where are these matters derived? From where is it learned that a High Priest and a nazirite, who are prohibited from becoming impure even to bury their relatives, must nevertheless become impure to bury a met mitzva?
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל נַפְשׁוֹת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״, בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִי בִּרְחוֹקִים — קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהוּא מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים? אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11). With regard to what bodies is the verse speaking? If it is referring to distant people, i.e., non-relatives, that halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his close family members, may not become impure to bury distant people, then with regard to a High Priest, who does not become impure even to bury close members of his family, is it not logical that he does not become impure to bury distant people? Rather, the verse is speaking of close family members, and it prohibits a High Priest from becoming impure to bury any person, even his relatives.
וּלְאָבִיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, הָא מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.
The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: “Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase “for his father” teaches: It is to bury his father that he may not become ritually impure, from which it may be inferred that he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.
