Nazir 42B

גמ׳ איתמר, אמר רבה אמר רב הונא: מקרא מלא דבר הכתוב: ״לא יטמא״. כשהוא אומר ״לא יבא״⁠ — להזהירו על הטומאה, להזהירו על הביאה. אבל טומאה וטומאה ⁠— לא.

Talmud: A dispute among amora’im was stated. Rabba said that Rav Huna said: The Torah stated a halakha involving a nazirite in a categorical verse: “He should not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:7). This includes all manners of contracting impurity imparted by a corpse, whether ritual impurity imparted by contact, by carrying, or in a tent, i.e., a corpse under the same roof. When the Torah states: “He should not come near to a dead body” (Numbers 6:6), it serves to warn him with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse in any manner, as above, and to warn him with regard to entering an enclosure with a corpse, which is a unique prohibition applicable to a nazirite that is added by the phrase “He should not come near to a dead body,” and he is liable separately for each. However, with regard to one contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, the verse does not warn him, and he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

ורב יוסף אמר: האלהים! אמר רב הונא: אפילו טומאה וטומאה. דאמר רב הונא: נזיר שהיה עומד בבית הקברות, והושיטו לו מתו ומת אחר ונגע בו ⁠— חייב. אמאי? הא מיטמא וקאים! אלא לאו שמע מינה, אמר רב הונא: אפילו טומאה וטומאה.

And Rav Yosef says in the form of an oath: By God! Rav Huna actually says that he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, not only if he entered an enclosure with a corpse. As Rav Huna says: With regard to a nazirite who was standing in a cemetery, who is already ritually impure, and they extended his corpse, i.e., the corpse of his relative, to him, and similarly if they extended a different corpse to him and he touched it, he is liable. But why is he liable; he has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity? Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that Rav Huna said he is separately liable even for contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse?