(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 space.

(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 ve'Omed').

(a) We refute the suggestion that it is speaking when the Nazir entered the house ...
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.
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.
(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 manner.

(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.
2. Rebbi there learns - the same thing from the Pasuk (written in connection with Nazir) "Lo Yitamei Lahem be'Mosam".
(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.
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.
2. And Rebbi learns from "Leheichalo" - the D'rashah that we discussed above (Rabah Amar Rav Huna) 'Yatza Zeh she'Mechulal ve'Omed'.
(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".
(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 (Tosfos).

(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 ruling.

(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 him.




(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 his father.

(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 ha'Meis'.

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.
2. ... Rov Minyanah - at least a hundred and twenty five limbs.
(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 applies.

(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 Chaser'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,