(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 47



(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, a Nazir who became Tamei after shaving on one of his Korbanos demolishes everything. According to the Chachamim - he may bring his remaining Korbanos the moment he becomes Tahor.

(b) They bring a proof from an incident that took place with Miriam the Tarmudian (a Nezirah) who, after bringing one of her Korbanos, heard that her daughter was dangerously ill. Subsequently went to visit her and discovered that she had died. She then participated in her burial, and the Chachamim ruled that, as soon as she became Tahor, she could being her remaining Korbanos.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer said earlier in the Masechta - that someone who became Tamei after his term of Nezirus had concluded only needs to demolish seven days.

(b) When he says here that he demolishes everything - he means all his Korbanos, even the first one.

(c) We prove this answer from the words of the Chachamim - who say 'Yavi *Sha'ar* Korbenasov ve'Yit'har' and (with regard to the incident with Miriam ha'Tarmudis) 'Tavi Sha'ar Korbenosehah ve'Tit'har', implying that they argue with Rebbi Eliezer over the first Korban, but agree with him regarding the other Korbanos.

***** Hadran Alach 'Sheloshah Minim' *****

***** Perek Kohen Gadol *****


(a) The stringency that a Nazir shares with a Kohen Gadol is - that he cannot render himself Tamei for his seven relatives.

(b) The concession they both have in common is - that they may (and are even obligated to) render themselves Tamei for a Meis Mitzvah (though this fact is not recorded explicitly in our Mishnah).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer holds that if a Nazir and a Kohen Gadol are walking together, then it is the Kohen Gadol who is obligated to bury the Meis Mitzvah rather than the Nazir - because when the latter becomes Tamei Meis, he has to bring Korbanos, whereas the former does not (indicating that a Nazir has more Kedushah than even a Kohen Gadol).

(a) The Chachamim give priority to the Kohen Gadol, and it is the Nazir who must bury him - because a Kohen's Kedushah is permanent, whereas that of a Nazir is only temporary.

(b) This will apply even if the Nazir is a N'zir Olam - seeing as 'S'tam Nazir Sheloshim Yom', which indicates that his Kedushah is not on a par with that of a Kohen, which is always permanent.

(c) It is evident from what we just wrote that the Kedushah of even a Kohen Hedyot (whose Kedushah is also permanent) supersedes that of a Nazir. Consequently, if a Nazir is walking together with a Kohen Hedyot - it is the still the Nazir who is obligated to bury the Meis Mitzvah.




(a) A Merubah Begadim is - a Kohen Gadol who was appointed after Yoshi'ah ha'Melech hid the bottle of anointing-oil (towards the end of the era of the first Beis-Hamikdash). His appointment entailed wearing the eight Begadim of a Kohen Gadol.

(b) It is possible for a Merubeh Begadim to continue to serve in the presence of a Mashu'ach (be'Shemen ha'Mishchah) - if the latter who was anointed before the Shemen ha'Mishchah was hidden, was exiled after it was hidden, and they appointed a new Kohen Gadol (who was a Merubeh Begadim) in his place. Then, many years later, the Mashu'ach returned. Normally, he would return to his position, and his stand-in would have to stand down, but here, because the new Kohen Gadol had already served for a long period, he will continue to serve (Tosfos).

(c) If a Merubah Begadim is walking with ...

1. ... a Mashu'ach, it is the former who is obligated to bury the Meis Mitzvah - because it is the latter who brings the Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos (should the necessity to bring it arise).
2. ... a Mashu'ach she'Avar, it is the latter who is obligated - because the Merubeh Begadim actually serves, whereas the Mashu'ach she'Avar does not even serve as a Kohen Hedyot.
(d) In the first of the two cases, what is meant by 'Par ha'Ba al Kol ha'Mitzvos' is - a bull that the Kohen Gadol Mashu'ach must bring, should he issue an erroneous ruling which he then follows.
(a) In the above-mentioned case of a Merubeh Begadim and Mashu'ach she'Avar, we preferred to discuss that case than the more simple case of a Merubeh Begadim and a Merubeh Begadim she'Avar, or a Mashu'ach and a Mashu'ach she'Avar - because it is a bigger Chidush (to tell us that even a Merubeh Begadim takes precedence even over a Mashu'ach [who would normally take precedence over him], once he has become a Mashu'ach she'Avar) Tosfos.

(b) It is not possible to establish the case with just two Kohanim - because the case would then be that a Merubeh Begadim (after the anointing oil had been hidden) became Tamei, and they anointed a replacement, who would become a Mashu'ach she'Avar once the Merubah Begadim returned. And this could never happen, because it would not be possible to anoint a Kohen Gadol after the anointing oil had been hidden (Tosfos).

(c) Neither can the case be when the initial Mashu'ach became Tamei, was replaced, returned to his position and then, when he died after the anointing oil had been hidden, they appointed a new Kohen Gadol (Merubeh Begadim), who was walking together with the Meshu'ach she'Avar when they came across a Meis Mitzvah - because should the Kohen Gadol die, there is no reason not to appoint the Mashu'ach she'Avar in his place (Tosfos).

(d) The case therefore, can only be - when the original Kohen Gadol did not die, but went into Galus with Yechonyah, in which case the Mashu'ach she'Avar cannot be appointed in his place, because Chazal decreed that a Mashu'ach she'Avar can no serve (even in the capacity of a Kohen Hedyot), during the lifetime of the Kohen Gadol (Tosfos).

(a) A Kohen Gadol who was removed because he was found to have a blemish bury the Meis Mitzvah rather than one who was removed because he was a Ba'al Keri - since the latter stands to return to the Avodah on the following day, whereas the blemished Kohen Gadol remains permanently out of action (and even if the blemish is only temporary, he will be incapacitated for an indefinite period).

(b) We ask who would have to bury the Meis Mitzvah if the S'gan was walking with the Mashu'ach Milchamah. The advantage that the ...

1. ... Mashu'ach Milchamah had over the S'gan - was that he (alone) served as Kohen Gadol for war (a public service).
2. ... S'gan have over the Mashu'ach Milchamah - was that he (alone) was fit to serve instead of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur, should the need arise.
(c) We resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa, which obligates the Mashu'ach Milchamah to perform the burial (because the deputy is considered more Kadosh than him). Mar Zutra reconciles this with another Beraisa, which gives the Mashu'ach Milchamah precedence over the S'gan - by establishing it specifically with regard to saving his life, should the lives of both be threatened (because the entire community depends on him).

(d) The second Beraisa is cited in Hori'os - with regard to a ruin that fell on them both, and one can only manage to remove the rubble from one of them.

1. The Mashu'ach Milchamah wore - eight Bigdei Kehunah when going to war.
2. The S'gan - wore only four when he served in place of the Kohen Gadol (like he did on Yom Kipur).
(b) The Mashu'ach Milchamah has five other Chumros over the S'gan - the five mentioned in the Parshah of Kohen Gadol (not marrying a widow ... ).

(c) The Tana of the first Beraisa mentions only the Din of the Mashu'ach Milchamah burying the Meis Mitzvah - because he is concerned only with his leniencies, but not with his stringencies (Tosfos).

(d) The S'gan's higher level of Kedushah than the Mashu'ach Milchamah also manifests itself - in the fact that it is *he* who walks on the right of the Kohen Gadol, whilst the Mashu'ach walks on his left.

(a) The Torah writes "Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo". We know that the Pasuk is not speaking about strangers - because we would know that from a 'Kal va'Chomer' (Tosfos).

(b) So it must be speaking about relatives, and the Torah writes it for the cases that follow. We learn from ...

1. ... "le'Aviv ... Lo Yitama" - the inference 'Aval Mitamei Hu le'Meis Mitzvah'
2. ... "le'Imo" - a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (Kohen Gadol from Nazir - which will be discussed shortly).
(c) The problem with using "le'Aviv" for this D'rashah is - that we only know that a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to render himself Tamei for his relatives (the basis of the 'Kal va'Chomer' that we just Darshened), from it (in which case, it is not redundant for a D'rashah).

(d) That being the case, Tosfos concludes, it is not really from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that we learn that a Kohen Gadol cannot render himself Tamei for strangers - but from the fact that they were forbidden to him before he became a Kohen Gadol. It is obvious that, once he becomes Kohen Gadol, they will not become permitted.

Next daf


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