(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 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 brother.

(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 really necessary).

(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 (Tosfos).

(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).
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 may not).
(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).

(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 "le'Achiv".

(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.
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 Meis Mitzvah.
(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 explained above.
(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.

Next daf


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