Babylonian Talmud: Nazir 47 (original) (raw)

Folio 47a

MISHNAH. IF [A NAZIRITE] ON WHOSE BEHALF ONE KIND OF BLOOD1 HAS BEEN SPRINKLED BECOMES UNCLEAN, R. ELIEZER SAID EVERYTHING IS RENDERED VOID,2 WHILST THE SAGES SAID: HE IS TO BRING HIS REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION. THEY SAID TO [R. ELIEZER]: IT IS RELATED OF MIRIAM OF TARMOD3 THAT ONE KIND OF BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED ON HER BEHALF WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS DANGEROUSLY ILL. SHE WENT AND FOUND HER DEAD,4 AND THE SAGES TOLD HER TO OFFER HER REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION.

GEMARA. The Mishnah says: R. ELIEZER SAID EVERYTHING IS RENDERED VOID. But R. Eliezer has said that whatever occurs after the fulfilment [of the nazirite period] renders void seven days?5 — Rab replied: By 'IS RENDERED VOID' here, R. Eliezer means 'renders his sacrifices void'.6 This is also clear from the sequel. viz: — WHILST THE SAGES SAID: HE IS TO BRING HIS REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION.7 IT IS RELATED FURTHER, OF MIRIAM OF TARMOD, THAT ONE KIND OF BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED ON HER BEHALF WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT HER DAUGHTER WAS DANGEROUSLY ILL. SHE WENT AND FOUND HER DEAD, AND THE SAGES TOLD HER TO OFFER THE REMAINING SACRIFICES AFTER PURIFICATION. This proves it.8

CHAPTER VII

MISHNAH. A HIGH PRIEST AND A NAZIRITE MAY NOT DEFILE THEMSELVES [BY CONTACT] WITH THEIR [DEAD] RELATIVES, BUT THEY MAY DEFILE THEMSELVES WITH A METH MIZWAH.9

IF THEY WERE WALKING BY THE WAY AND FOUND A METH MIZWAH, R. ELIEZER SAYS THAT THE HIGH PRIEST SHOULD DEFILE HIMSELF BUT NOT THE NAZIRITE, BUT THE SAGES SAY: THE NAZIRITE SHOULD DEFILE HIMSELF BUT NOT THE COMMON PRIEST.10 R. ELIEZER SAID TO THEM: RATHER SHOULD THE PRIEST, WHO DOES NOT OFFER A SACRIFICE ON DEFILEMENT, DEFILE HIMSELF, THAN THE NAZIRITE WHO MUST OFFER A SACRIFICE ON DEFILEMENT.11 THEY REPLIED: RATHER SHOULD THE NAZIRITE WHOSE CONSECRATION IS NOT PERMANENT,12 DEFILE HIMSELF, THAN THE PRIEST WHOSE CONSECRATION IS PERMANENT.13

GEMARA. It is clear that as between a High Priest and a nazirite, the one [authority]14 is of the opinion that the High Priest is of superior sanctity,15 and the other16 that the nazirite is of superior sanctity.17

As between [a High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil,18

Original footnotes renumbered.

  1. I.e., the blood of one of the three sacrifices.
  2. Explained in the Gemara.
  3. A nazirite, Tarmod or Tadmor Palmyra. (V. I Kings, IX, 18).
  4. Thus becoming accidentally unclean.
  5. Supra 16a-b. If then 'EVERYTHING' means the nazirite period, R. Eliezer is contradicting himself.
  6. I.e., the sacrifice the blood of which had been sprinkled is invalid and must be replaced, in accordance with R. Eliezer's view that the whole termination ceremony of the nazirite hangs together; v. supra 46a.
  7. The words in cur. edd. 'This proves it' are to be deleted.
  8. That the point at issue was only the validity of the first sacrifices.
  9. I.e., a corpse without relatives at hand to bury it; v. Glos.
  10. Some versions read 'High Priest'. The argument is not affected.
  11. V. Num. VI, 9ff.
  12. It lapses at the end of the period of his naziriteship, or he can obtain release from his vow by application to a sage (Tosaf.).
  13. It is a result of his birth.
  14. I.e., the Sages.
  15. I.e., if both come upon a corpse which has no relatives to bury it, the nazirite must defile himself in order to bury it.
  16. R. Eliezer.
  17. And the High Priest must bury the corpse.
  18. V. Ex. XXX, 30. The High Priest ceased to be consecrated with this oil in the days of Josiah (c. 620 B.C.E.); v. Hor. 120 and Yoma 52b. After this, consecration took place by investing the priest with the garments of a High Priest.

Nazir 47b

and [one consecrated by wearing] the additional garments,1 the former is of superior sanctity,2 for the former must offer the bullock brought for breach of any of 'all the commandments',3 but the latter cannot offer it.4

As between an anointed [High Priest] who has been superseded,5 and one consecrated by [wearing] the additional garments,6 the latter is of superior sanctity,7 for he performs the Temple service, whilst the former is not permitted to perform the Temple service.8

As between one superseded on account of a [nocturnal] mishap,9 and one superseded on account of a deformity,10 the former is of superior sanctity,11 for he will be fit to perform the Temple service on the morrow, whilst the one superseded on account of his deformity is not fit to perform the Temple service.12

The question was propounded: As between [the High Priest] anointed for a war,13 and the deputy [High Priest],14 which is of superior sanctity? Does the [High Priest] anointed for war take precedence, because he is qualified to go to war, or does the deputy take precedence, because he is qualified to perform the Temple service?15 — Come and hear: For it has been taught: The only difference between a [High Priest] anointed for war and a deputy is that if they were both walking by the way and encountered a meth mizwah, the [High Priest] anointed for war is to defile himself, but not the deputy. But has it not been taught: A [High Priest] anointed for war takes precedence of a deputy? — Mar Zutra replied: As far as saving his life is concerned,16 the [High Priest] anointed for war has a superior claim for many [people] depend upon him,17 but as regards defilement, the deputy is of superior sanctity, as has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said that the reason the office of deputy to the High Priest was created,18 was that should any disqualification happen to him [the High Priest], he can enter and minister in his stead.

[Now Eliezer and the Sages] differ only as regards a High Priest and a nazirite walking together, but each one by himself would be required to defile himself.19 How is it known that this is so? — Our Rabbis have taught: To what does the passage. Neither shall he go in to any dead body20 refer? It can hardly be to strangers, since this could be inferred a fortiori [by the following argument]. Seeing that a common priest, who is allowed to contract defilement in the case of kinsmen, is forbidden to do so in the case of strangers,21 the High Priest who is not permitted to contract defilement in the case of kinsmen should certainly not be permitted to do so in the case of strangers. It follows that the passage refers to kinsmen, [and when therefore the text says.] Nor for his father22 is he permitted to defile himself, [we infer that] he is permitted to defile himself in the case of a corpse [the burial of] which is a religious duty.

Original footnotes renumbered.

  1. The High Priest wore eight garments and the common priest four. V. Ex. XXVIII.
  2. And if both encounter a corpse, the latter must bury it.
  3. V. Lev. IV, 2ff.
  4. V. Hor. 11b.
  5. If the High Priest could not officiate on the Day of Atonement, another Priest was appointed to his office for that day only. As soon as the former was able to perform his duties, the latter was superseded.
  6. And who is the regular High Priest.
  7. And the former must defile himself if the latter is the only other person present and they encounter a corpse.
  8. Having officiated as High Priest, he was not allowed to act as a common priest, nor could he officiate as High Priest whilst the other lived, as this would cause jealousy. v. Hor. 12b.
  9. Lev. XV, 16.
  10. Lev. XXI, 27.
  11. And the latter must defile himself in the event of both meeting with a corpse.
  12. Until the deformity disappears.
  13. V. Deut. XX.
  14. Segan, who deputised for the High Priest if he was unable to perform the Temple service on the Day of Atonement. On Segan, v. Sanh. (Sone. ed.) p. 97, n. 1.
  15. But once a priest had been anointed for war, he could no longer take part in the Temple service.
  16. Should both be in danger.
  17. For he is to go to war on their behalf.
  18. This saying occurs also in Yoma 39a, where the reading is: 'R. Hanina, the priestly deputy, said that the reason the deputy stands at his (the High Priest's) right is that …' on the whole passage v. Hor. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 97ff.
  19. If they came upon a corpse whose burial is a religious duty.
  20. Lev. XXI, 21.
  21. V. Lev. XXI. 2 and 3.
  22. Since this part of the verse is superfluous. Lev. XXI, 22.