Study Nazir folio 43B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמר רב חסדא אמר רב: נקטע ראשו של אביו — אינו מטמא לו. מאי טעמא — אמר קרא: ״לאביו״, בזמן שהוא שלם, ולא בזמן שהוא חסר. אמר ליה רב המנונא: אלא מעתה, קאזיל בפקתא דערבות, ופסקוה גנבי לרישיה, הכי נמי דלא ליטמא ליה?
§ Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said: If the head of his father, or any other relative for whom a priest becomes impure, was severed, he may not become impure to bury him. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “None should become impure for the dead among his people, except…for his father” (Leviticus 21:1–2), which indicates that this applies when his father is whole, and not when he is lacking. Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: If that is so, then in a case where one was walking in the valley [pakta] of Aravot, a place frequented by bandits, and robbers severed his head, will you also say that his son the priest does not become impure to bury him because he is not whole?
אמר ליה: מת מצוה קאמרת? השתא יש לומר: באחריני מיחייב, באביו לא כל שכן?
Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you speak of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]? This halakha certainly does not apply to a case of this kind. For now consider, if one can say that to bury others, i.e., non-relatives, he is obligated to become ritually impure, as even priests and nazirites must become impure to bury an unattended corpse, then with regard to a met mitzva who is his father is it not all the more so the case that he must become impure to bury him even if his head is severed?
והאי מת מצוה הוא? והתניא: איזהו מת מצוה — כל שאין לו קוברין. קורא ואחרים עונין אותו — אין זה מת מצוה. והא אית ליה ברא! כיון דקאזיל באורחא — כמי שאין לו קוברים דמי.
The Talmud asks: And is this a met mitzva? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Which is a met mitzva for whom a priest must become impure? It is anyone who does not have people to bury him apart from this priest. If the corpse is in a place where if he would call, others would answer him, that is not considered a met mitzva. And if this dead father has a son who was with him, it means the father is not classified as a met mitzva, and therefore his son the priest must ensure that others tend to his burial, without doing so himself. The Talmud answers: Since he was walking along the way, he is considered like one who does not have people to bury him.