ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 43
(a) Rebbi Yochanan just established the 'Tum'ah u'Bi'ah' of Rabah Amar Rav
Huna (for which the Nazir will be Chayav two sets of Malkos) when they
warned him not to enter a house in which a dead person lay (mentioning both
the La'av of "Lo Yitama" and of "Lo Yavo"). He becomes Tamei for touching
the corpse (not from the time that he actually touches it, because then he
will already have been Tamei from the time he entered the house, in which
case he is 'Mechulal ve'Omed, but) - from the moment he enters, because a
house that contains a corpse is considered as if the corpse fills the entire
(b) Based on the principle 'Bi'ah be'Miktzas Lo Sh'mah Bi'ah' - the Tum'ah
of Bi'ah only comes into effect as soon as most of the person's body has
entered the house.
(c) The problem that this creates with Rebbi Yochanan's answer is - that the
moment that the Nazir's arm (generally the first limb to enter the house)
enters the house, the Tum'ah of touching takes effect, whereas the Tum'ah of
Bi'ah will only come into effect when the majority of the Nazir has entered
the house, as we just explained (by which time he is already 'Mechulal
(a) We refute the suggestion that it is speaking when the Nazir entered the
1. ... with his arms at his sides, both Tum'os come effective simultaneously
(like Rebbi 'Alef' [possibly Rebbi Elazar] - because we would remain with
the same problem, seeing as the moment the Nazir's *nose* enters the house,
he becomes Tamei for touching the Meis, but not as far as the Din of Bi'ah
is concerned, as we just explained.
(b) We cannot establish the case when he walked in backwards - because
Tum'as Bi'ah does not take effect unless one enters the house in the normal
2. ... with his head bent backwards, so that his body entered first (like
Rava suggested) - because we would still remain with the problem on account
of his toes, which are bound to enter the house first.
(c) The Kashya that we could we have asked on all the initial explanations
is - that the moment that *any* part of the Nazir's body entered the house,
he would be Tamei for touching, but not Tum'as Bi'ah (Tosfos).
(d) Rav Papa finally establishes Rabah Amar Rav Huna - when the Nazir
entered the house in some sort of covered wagon, and that the Tum'ah and the
Bi'ah come at the same time, when someone came and uncovered it (though the
Nazir must have helped him in order to be Chayav Malkos - Tosfos).
(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi finds a case where the Nazir walked into the house
under his own steam, yet he is Chayav for Tum'ah and Bi'ah simultaneously -
when the Nazir entered the house first and the Go'ses died afterwards.
1. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Leheichalo" (in
connection with Kohanim) - that a Go'ses does not render someone who touches
him Tamei until he has actually died.
(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Machlokes is purely a matter of
mechanics (from which Pasuk to derive it); otherwise, the two opinions do
not argue. According to Resh Lakish - Rebbi does argue with the Tana Kama,
who maintains that a Go'ses renders someone who touches him Tamei.
2. Rebbi there learns - the same thing from the Pasuk (written in connection
with Nazir) "Lo Yitamei Lahem be'Mosam".
1. The Tana Kama of the above Beraisa learns from "be'Mosam" - that the
prohibition of a Nazir (or a Kohen) to become Tamei is confined to Tum'as
Meis, but does not extend to Tum'as Nega'im and Zav.
(b) The Tana Kama learns the S'vara of 'Mechulal ve'Omed' - from the extra
'Vav' in "Leheichal*o*" (seeing as the Torah could have written "Leheichal".
2. And Rebbi learns from "Leheichalo" - the D'rashah that we discussed above
(Rabah Amar Rav Huna) 'Yatza Zeh she'Mechulal ve'Omed'.
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa says that a person who is cut up or who is a
Go'ses - does not render one Tamei until he actually dies.
(b) We ask from this Beraisa on Resh Lakish - who learns that, according to
the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a Kohen is forbidden to touch a Go'ses
(because he makes him Tamei).
(c) We could easily have answered the Kashya - by establishing it like Rebbi
(d) In fact, we answer that even though a Go'ses does not render one Tamei,
he does however, profane the Kedushah of a Kohen who touches him (or who
remains in the same Ohel).
(a) Bearing in mind that we rule like Rebbi Yochanan against Resh Lakish,
the important Halachah concerning Tum'as Kohanim to emerge from this Sugya
is - that a Kohen may touch a Go'ses or remain in the same room as him.
(b) The text of the Behag however, which reads Abaye in place of Rebbi
Yochanan and Rava in place of Resh Lakish, creates a problem with this
(c) According to the Behag - the Halachah will be like Rava, and a Kohen
must refrain from touching a Go'ses, or from being under the same roof as
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a
Kohen Hedyot) "le'Aviv" - that a Kohen is only permitted to see to the
burial needs of his seven relatives as long as their bodies are complete,
but not if a major limb such as the head, has been removed.
(b) When Rav Hamnuna asked Rav Chisda whether this would also apply to
someone whose father was walking in a robber-infested valley and whom
robbers decapitated - he replied that if a Kohen is obligated to bury a Meis
Mitzvah who is a stranger, he is certainly obligated to bury him if it is
(c) We query Rav Chisda's answer from a Beraisa, which describes a Meis
Mitzvah as 'Kol she'Ein Lo Kovrin' (whereas 'Kor'in, va'Acheirim Onin Oso,
Ein Zeh Meis Mitzvah'), which we initially interpret to mean - that the Meis
would have had no family to call for help.
(d) We finally explain it to mean - that there was nobody within hailing
distance, thereby resolving Rav Hamnuna's Kashya.
(a) A Kohen is not permitted to bury a Meis - if there are Yisre'eilim who
are non-relatives within hailing distance of the Meis (see Rosh).
(b) The Sugya in Yevamos nevertheless permits a Kohen to bury his wife who
is a Ketanah should she die, even though she has relatives who could do it -
not because she is really a Meis Mitzvah (min ha'Torah), but because, seeing
as it is her husband who inherits her, and her family will therefore be
loath to see to her burial needs, Chazal gave her the Din of a Meis Mitzvah.
(c) Despite the fact that she is not really a Meis Mitzvah, Chazal were
nevertheless able to enact a Takanah permitting a Kohen to perform an
Aveirah (even though we normally assume their powers to be limited to
transgressing negatively, but not positively) - because in urgent cases,
they are even empowered to make such Takanos too.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Lah Yitama" (written in
connection with a Kohen's deceased unmarried sister) - that although a Kohen
is obligated to see to her burial, he is not permitted to bury her limbs (or
those of his father).
(b) The Tana who learned this earlier from "le'Aviv", will learn from "Lah
Yitama" burying his sister is obligatory (Tosfos Sotah).
(c) When the Tana concludes 'Aval Machzir Hu al Etzem ki'Se'orah' - he means
that, although the Kohen is not initially permitted to bury his father with
major limbs missing, once he has buried him, he is permitted to add even a
small bone the size of a barley, in order to complete the burial.
(a) We reconcile this Beraisa with Rav Chisda Amar Rav who Darshened above
"le'Aviv", 'bi'Z'man she'Hu Shalem, ve'Lo bi'Z'man she'Hu Chaser', by
establishing the current Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah - who Darshens from "Lah
Yitama" virtually the same as the Beraisa that we just cited.
(b) We establish the Reisha of the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, despite the
fact that Rebbi Yehudah's statement comprises the Seifa - because the entire
Beraisa goes like him (and the Tana only quotes the Seifa to prove that he
is the author of the Beraisa).
(c) In another Beraisa quoted by Rav Kahana, the Tana Darshens "Lah Yitama"
like the Tana in the previous Beraisa, but he adds the case of a 'k'Zayis
Natzal' and a 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' to that of '(P'rat li')k'Zayis min
1. A 'k'Zayis Natzal' is - a k'Zayis of the juice that seeps from a corpse.
2. A 'M'lo Tarvad Rekev' is - a k'Zayis of dust and rot from a corpse
(a) The Tana does obligate a Kohen however, to render himself Tamei for the
skull and spine of his sister, as well as 'Rov Binyanah, ve'Rov Minyanah' -
which he learns from the repetition of "Emor (el ha'Kohanim) ve'Amarta".
(b) The meaning of ...
1. ... Rov Binyanah is for example, two calves and one thigh.
(c) We know that this extends to the six other relatives that a Kohen is
obligated to bury - because it is logical that if it applies to a Kohen's
sister, whom he is certainly obligated to bury when she is complete, then it
will also extend to the other relatives, to whom the same obligation
2. ... Rov Minyanah - at least a hundred and twenty five limbs.
(d) We reconcile Rav with*this* Beraisa - by establishing it according to
Rebbi Yehudah (just as we did the previous one).
(a) Rav actually holds like the Tana of another Beraisa, which cites the
story of Rebbi Yitzchak (or Rebbi Tzadok ha'Kohen) whose father died. Three
years later, they came to ask Rebbi Yehoshua ben Elisha and the four elders
who were with him - whether he was permitted to transfer his father's
remains to the family sepulcher.
(b) He replied - "le'Aviv", 'bi'Z'man she'Hu Shalem, ve'Lo bi'Z'man she'Hu