Talmud Nazir (E)

(11) So that he had not polled two hairs validly.
(12) [Dibtha below the Tigris, S.E. Babylon, Obermeyer, op. cit. 197.]
(13) There would finally remain two as in the present instance, and the polling of one would, R. Aha assumes, certainly
complete the polling.
(14) Thus when he commenced the final polling, there were not two hairs left, but one.
(15) I.e., Raba answered his own problem (v. the parallel text in B.K. 105a).
(16) For he is only required to poll what is actually there.
(17)  Since there were not two hairs when he started. He should therefore poll again later (v. Asheri and Maimonides,
Yad Neziruth, VIII, 7); Rashi, here, does not require him to poll again.
(18) I. e., may not use a comb, because hair will come out.
(19)  Provided that the act he is doing is permitted, he is not made to refrain because he may unintentionally also do
something forbidden (v. Shab. 50b). So here, although hairs may detach themselves even if he uses only his fingers, we
do not forbid him to use them.
(20) For here too it is not his intention to detach hairs.
(21) And this is forbidden.
(22) After each warning.
(23) After each warning.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 42b
GEMARA. It was stated: Rabbah, citing R. Huna, said: Scripture [speaking of the nazirite] makes
the comprehensive statement, He shall not make himself unclean;
1
 when it adds, He shall not enter
[by a dead body],
2
 [its intention is] to utter a [separate] warning against defilement [by contact] and a
[separate] warning against entering [a tent],
3
 but not against defilement [by contact] from two
scources [at the same time].
4
 R. Joseph, however, said: By God! R. Huna said that even for
defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time there are separate penalties]. For R. Huna
has said that a nazirite, standing in a cemetery, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or
some other corpse, and touched it incurs a penalty.
5
 Now why should this be so? Is he not actually
being defiled all the time?
6
 It follows therefore that R. Huna must have said that even for defilement
[by contact] from two sources [he is to receive separate penalties].
 
    Abaye raised an objection from the following. [A Baraitha teaches:] ‘A priest,
7
 carrying a corpse
on his back, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or some other corpse and touched it,
might be thought to have incurred a penalty,
8
 but the text says, Nor profane [the sanctuary]
9
[prescribing a penalty] for one not already profaned [and thus] excluding this man who is already
profaned?
10
 — [R. Joseph] replied: But our Mishnah should cause you the same perplexity, for we
learn [there], FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL DAY LONG
HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, ‘DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF,’ ‘DO
NOT DEFILE YOURSELF, AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF, HE HAS INCURRED A
PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. But why should this be so? Is he not already defiled? We can
therefore only conclude that [the Mishnah and the Baraitha] contradict each other.
11
 
    [Abaye retorted:] There is no difficulty [in reconciling the Mishnah and the Baraitha]. The latter
assumes that there is concatenation,
12
 the former that there is no concatenation.
 
    Is then defilement through concatenation a Torah enactment? Has not R. Isaac b. Joseph said: R.
Jannai said that defilement through concatenation was held to be effective only as it affects terumah
and sacrificial meats,
13
 but not the nazirite or a celebrant of the passover?
14
 Now, if as you assert, it
is a Torah [defilement], why should there be this difference?
15
 — There concatenation of one man
with another is meant;
16
 in our case concatenation of the man with the corpse.
17
 
    ‘But not against defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time,’
18
 said Rabbah]

---

because he is actually defiled already. But in the case of defilement [by contact] and entering [a tent
containing a corpse] is he not also already defiled?
19
 — R. Johanan replied: In the latter case [he is
supposed to enter] a house [whilst undefiled];
20
 in the former, [which takes place] in the open [there
cannot be two penalties].
21
____________________
(1) Num. VI, 7.
(2) E.v. ‘come near to’, Num. V. 6.
(3) Containing a dead body. So that a nazirite, duly warned, who enters a covered place containing a corpse and actually
touches the corpse is scourged twice.
(4) I.e., for touching two corpses at the same time he is scourged only once, even if warned against each separately.
(5) I.e., a penalty for touching the corpse.
(6) By being in the cemetery.
(7) Some versions (including Tosaf. and Asheri) read ‘a nazirite’.
(8) I.e., a further penalty for the second contact.
(9) Of the High Priest. Lev. XXI, 12; so our text. Tosaf. and others read the verse, ‘to profane himself’ (Ibid. 4) spoken
of an ordinary priest. In either case it is presumed that the same is true of the nazirite.
(10) Whereas according to R. Joseph there should be an extra penalty. Hence the contradiction.
(11) And I, says R. Joseph, agree with the Mishnah which is more important.
(12) I.e., that the person and the two corpses are in contact at the same time, and that is why there is no extra penalty.
Where there is contact at different times there is an additional penalty.
(13) I.e., a person defiled through concatenation (in what way is explained below) is forbidden to eat terumah (v. Glos.)
or sacrificial meats for seven days, as though there had been direct contact with the corpse.
(14) These observe defilement for one day only.
(15) Hence concatenation is not a Torah enactment, and why should there be the difference between the Mishnah and the
Baraitha.
(16)  I.e., a man touching a second man in contact with a corpse. Here the defilement for seven days instead of one is
rabbinic.
(17) If he then touches a second corpse there is no further defilement and so no further penalty.
(18) The Torah does not prescribe two scourgings in such a case, v. supra.
(19) Why then does Rabbah say that he is to receive two scourgings in this case?
(20) So that he both enters the house of the dead and becomes defiled at the same instant. Hence both prohibitions are
transgressed together.
(21) Because he becomes unclean by the first contact and then no further penalty can lie for contact or entering a tent of
the dead.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 43a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 43a
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 43a
    But even [on entering] a house, as soon as his hands are inside he becomes unclean,
1
 so that when
he has gone right in he is already unclean?
2
 — As a matter of fact, said R. Eleazar, if he put his
hands together and entered there would be [a penalty only] for defilement but none for entering, but
if he drew himself up
3
 and entered, defilement and entering occur at the same moment.
 
    But it is impossible for his nose not to go in first? — As a matter of fact, said Raba, if he
introduces his hand
4
 there would be [a penalty] for defilement and not for entering, but if he
introduces his body,
5
 defilement and entering are simultaneous.
 
    But it is impossible for his toes not to enter first? — R. Papa therefore said: It is supposed that he
entered in a box, or a chest, or a turret,
6
 and his fellow came and broke away the covering,
7
 so that
defilement and entering are simultaneous. Mar b. R. Ashi said: It is supposed that he entered whilst
the other lay dying,
8
 and whilst he was sitting there the spirit departed so that defilement and
entering were simultaneous.
 

---