ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nazir 48
(a) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Nazir becoming
Tamei for his relatives) "Lo Yitama Lahem *be'Mosam"* - that he is permitted
to render himself Tamei by touching a Zav or a Metzora (even though the
latter is considered like dead - Tosfos).
(b) He then learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Imo" (by a Kohen Gadol) "Imo"
(by a Nazir) - that the same applies to a Kohen Gadol.
(c) The important Halachah (regarding Kohanim burying their relatives) that
we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Achavah" "Achvah" from the B'nei
Ya'akov - is that it is only the father's family who are considered
relatives, and that a Kohen is therefore not permitted to bury his maternal
(d) "Imo" (by Kohen Gadol) is therefore superfluous (to enable us to learn a
'Gezeirah-Shavah') - since we know that a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to bury
his mother from a 'Kal va'Chomer': If he is not permitted to bury his father
(even though a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to bury his paternal brother), then
(seeing as a Kohen Hedyot is forbidden to bury his maternal brother), the
Kohen Gadol should certainly not be permitted to bury his mother.
(a) Even though we already know that a Kohen Gadol is not permitted to bury
his relatives from the Pasuk "ve'Al Kol Nafshos Meis Lo Yavo" (as we learned
earlier), we nevertheless need the 'Kal va'Chomer' to forbid him to bury his
mother (and her family). We might otherwise have thought - that it is only
his paternal family whom he is forbidden to bury, because there is always an
element of doubt whether they are really his family or not, which is not the
case by his mother's family (Tosfos).
(b) The 'Kal va'Chomer' teaches us that one's father's family is considered
family more than that of one's mother (Tosfos).
(c) The reason for this is - because Yichus (lineage) goes after one's
father, and not one's mother (Tosfos).
(d) From the fact that we learn Meis Mitzvah from "Aviv", without taking
into consideration that perhaps "Aviv" comes to preclude from the theory
that "Imo" (who is certainly his mother) precludes his father (who is not) -
it appears that the Tana follows the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, who ignores
these S'varos, interpreting "Al Kol Nafshos Meis" to cover all relatives
(and the 'Kal va'Chomer' only comes to add spice to the Pasuk, but is not
(a) We ask from where we know that a Nazir is permitted to bury a Meis
Mitzvah. We cannot learn it from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Imo" "Imo")
from which we just learned that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to render himself
Tamei for Tum'as Nega'im and Zivus - because if we did not find another
source for it, we would confine the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to Meis Mitzvah, and
would not then be able to learn the other 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from it
(b) We have learned from "Aviv" that a Kohen Gadol may not render himself
Tamei even for a relative. From the Pasuk "Kol Yemei Haziro la'Hashem al
Nefesh Meis Lo Yavo" we learn - that the same applies to a Nazir.
(c) Had the Torah omitted the word "Meis" - we would have included a dead
animal in the prohibition of Tum'as Meis of a Nazir.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with (the Tana Kama's need to learn) the
previous D'rashah. He learns from the Pasuk " ... Lo Yavo" - that the Torah
is speaking about a case where Tum'as Bi'ah ('Ohel') applies, automatically
precluding a dead animal.
(b) We refute the suggestion that ...
1. ... Nazir does not require a special Pasuk because we can learn it from a
'Kal va'Chomer' from Kohen Gadol (whose Kedushah is permanent) - on the
grounds that a Nazir too, has a Chumra, inasmuch as he is obligated to bring
a Korban (rendering him more stringent than a Kohen Gadol).
(c) We thought that a Nazir is forbidden to bury his relatives but permitted
to bury strangers - because it is specifically his relatives whose demise
makes him sad, that is forbidden, because it is not in keeping with the
Kedushah of a Nazir to be sad, but not the death of strangers, at whose
death one is not so deeply affected (Tosfos).
2. ... "le'Aviv (u'le'Imo") comes to preclude Meisim who are not relatives
from the prohibition - on the grounds that we know that already from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Kohen Hedyot, who may bury his relatives (whereas a Nazir
(d) The 'Kal va'Chomer from Kohen Hedyot teaches us - that this S'vara is
incorrect, seeing as there, we say exactly the opposite.
(a) The Tana tries to compare 'K'lalus' by Nazir to 'K'lalus' by Kohen
Gadol, inasmuch as just as we infer from "le'Aviv (u'le'Imo") written by the
latter, that he may bury a Meis Mitzvah, so too will we make the same
inference by "le'Aviv (u'le'Imo") of Nazir. By 'K'lalus' - the Tana means
the Pasuk "al Nefesh Meis Lo Yavo".
(b) The Tana is not learning Nazir (who brings a Korban) from a Kohen Gadol
(who does not) however - only making a loose comparison between Nazir and
Kohen Gadol, inasmuch as the Pasuk by Nazir incorporates all relatives just
as it does by Kohen Gadol. And once we know that, we will automatically
learn Meis Mitzvah from "le'Aviv" (Tosfos).
(c) But he rejects this on the grounds that one may well infer the opposite
from the 'K'lalus' of a Kohen Hedyot - by whom the Torah permits burying his
relatives. Consequently, "le'Aviv" will be needed to include his relatives
in the prohibition.
(a) From "le'Imo", the Tana learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ('li'Nega'am
u'le'Zivam' of Rebbi), and the Heter to bury a Meis Mitzvah he learns from
(b) Despite the fact that "Imo" by Kohen Gadol is redundant (as we learned
above), he requires "Imo" by Nazir to be redundant too - because he holds
like Rebbi Yishmael, in whose opinion one can ask a Pircha on a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is only redundant on one side.
(c) The two Pirchos that we could have asked on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah (to
prevent learning Nazir from Kohen Gadol) are - firstly, a Nazir is not
permanently Kadosh, whereas a Kohen Gadol is, and secondly, his Kedushah can
be revoked by a Chacham, which that of a Kohen Gadol cannot (Tosfos).
(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... " ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah ... *Lo Yitama*" - that if the Nazir is
going to Shecht his Pesach or to perform the Mitzvah of B'ris Milah on his
son when one of his relatives dies, he is forbidden to bury them (the fact
that he is a Nazir does not really make any difference), because an Asei
where there is no Kareis cannot override one where there is.
(b) The reason that he does not first Darshen "Imo" "Imo" for the
'Gezeirah-Shavah', and then "le'Achiv" to preclude a Meis Mitzvah (to adhere
to the order that the words appear in the Pasuk) is - because, if he did not
have "le'Achiv" for a Meis Mitzvah, he would learn Meis Mitzvah from "Imo",
and it would no longer be redundant for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', as we
2. ... "*ve'la'Achoso* ha'Besulah ... Lo Yitama" - that in spite of the fact
that Pesach and Milah carry a Chiyuv Kareis, he is obligated to bury the
(a) Rebbi Akiva Darshens the Pasuk by Nazir quite differently. According
to him, "Al Nafshos" refers to strangers, and "Meis" to relatives. "Nafshos"
in his opinion, does not imply a dead animal, either because the Torah
writes "Lo Yavo" (like Rebbi Yishmael), or because the Torah may well refer
to a dead animal as "Nefesh Meis", but not as "Nefesh" S'tam. Another reason
why the Pasuk cannot be speaking about a dead animal is - because the Torah
would have then referred to it as "Neveilah" and not as "Meis).
(b) Rebbi Akiva learn from "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitama" - that a Nazir must
bury a Meis Mitzvah.
(c) He learns from "le'Achiv" that even a Kohen Gadol who is also a Nazir
must bury a Meis Mitzvah. He does not require a D'rashah for a Kohen
Hedyot - because, seeing as he is permitted to bury his relatives, it is
obvious that his permanent Kedushah will not stand against a Meis Mitzvah.
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns that a Kohen Gadol may bury a Meis Mitzvah - from
"Achiv" by Nazir, from which we learn that a Kohen Gadol who is a Nazir
buries a Meis Mitzvah, 'Kal va'Chomer' a Kohen Gadol who is not (leaving
"Imo" by Kohen free to Darshen Rebbi's 'Gezeirah-Shavah' [though it is
unclear what Rebbi Akiva then learns from "le'Aviv" by Kohen]).
(b) Despite the fact that he Darshens the entire Pasuk by Nazir (even from
"le'Aviv" and "le'Imo" as two separate D'rashos, as we shall soon see) which
in effect, means that only the Pasuk by Kohen is Mufneh but not that of
Nazir, Rebbi Akiva nevertheless agrees with Rebbi's 'Gezeirah-Shavah' -
because, unlike Rebbi Yishmael, Rebbi Akiva maintains that one cannot ask a
Pircha on a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' as long as it is Mufnah on one side.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael, who (needs "le'Aviv" to teach us relatives, and who
consequently has only one Pasuk for a Nazir burying a Meis Mitzvah) knows
that a Nazir who is also a Kohen Gadol must bury a Meis Mitzvah (in spite of
the double Kedushah) - because, in his opinion, there is no reason to
differentiate between one Kedushah and two Kedushos.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless requires "Achoso" to obligate someone who is
going to Shecht his Pesach or to perform B'ris Milah on his son to bury a
Meis Mitzvah - because he agrees that one does require an independent Pasuk
for Meis Mitzvah to override an Asei where there is Kareis.