הלכות נזירות

There are types of impurity resulting from [contact with] a corpse that do not require a nazirite to perform a shaving and do not invalidate the days previously observed even though he became impure in a manner that requires him to observe impurity for [at least] seven days. [The rationale is that] it is not stated concerning such situations: "When one will become impure due [to contact with] a corpse...", but rather [Numbers 6:9], "When a person will die upon him." [This implies that] he must become impure with those impurities that involve the actual substance of the corpse. 3:3, the Rambam writes: "All ritual impurity resulting from a corpse for which a nazirite is not required to shave does not stem from Scriptural Law." If this impurity were Rabbinic in origin, the Rambam would not have to explain why it does not invalidate the previous days, it would be obvious. A Rabbinic decree cannot supercede Scriptural Law and according to Scriptural Law, it is forbidden for a nazirite to shave.
As explained in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 15, there are times when the Rambam uses the term midivrei sofrim, which usually means "stemming from Rabbinic decree" to refer to matters that are of Scriptural origin, but derived by our Sages using the accepted principles of Biblical exegesis (see Hilchot Ishut 1:2; Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 2). Similarly, with regard to the contraction of ritual impurity in question: Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, it could be considered of Scriptural origin, because it was derived through the laws of Biblical exegesis. Hence, the Rambam needs a derivation from a Scriptural source to explain why shaving is not required. Afterwards, he must bring the sacrifices [required] and perform the shaving required [when emerging from] impurity. All of the days [he observed] initially are invalidated.

These are the types of impurity stemming from contact with a corpse that a nazirite must shave because of [contact with] them: a) a stillborn fetus, even if the sinews connecting its limbs have not formed, b) an olive-sized portion of the flesh of a corpse, 2:1). c) an olive-sized portion of a decomposed corpse, at the conclusion of the halachah; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:1. d) bones from a corpse which represent the majority of the number of the bones of a corpse 2:8-10. even though their volume is not a fourth of a kav, is a relatively small measure (1376 cc according to Shiurei Torah, 2400 cc according to Chazon Ish). Thus we are probably speaking of the bones of an infant or a fetus. See Halachah 4. e) bones which represent the majority of the structure of the bones of a corpse even though their volume is not a fourth of a kav, 2:1). f) a half of a kav of bones of bones (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:9). Nevertheless, a nazirite is not required to shave unless there is a half a kav there. See Halachot 6-7. even though they do not represent the majority of the number or the structure of the bones of the corpse - all the bones must, however, be from one corpse, not from two, g) the backbone that comes from one corpse, h) the skull that comes from one corpse, i) a [complete] limb that comes from one corpse, j) a limb taken from a living person that has flesh that could cause it to regenerate in a living person, 2:3). k) half a log is 172 cc according to Shiurei Torah and 300 cc according to Chazon Ish. Even though one revi'it is sufficient to convey ritual impurity (Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:12), for a nazirite to be required to shave, twice that amount is required. See also Halachah 6. of blood from one corpse, and l) a handful of the decomposed mass of a corpse.; see also Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:11.
What is meant by the term netzel? Flesh from a corpse that decomposed and became putrid liquid.

The decomposed mass (rekev) of a corpse does not convey ritual impurity unless it was buried naked in a marble coffin 3:4). and was entirely intact. If one limb was lacking or it was buried in garments or in a wooden or metal). coffin, there is no concept of rekev. The concept of rekev applies with regard to a corpse alone. This excludes a person who was slain, for his blood is lacking.

When two corpses are buried together, applies only when there is one corpse. the hair and the nails of a corpse were cut off and buried together with it, or a woman was buried together with a fetus in her womb, the rekev does not convey ritual impurity.
Similarly, if one ground up a corpse until it became a decomposed mass, [these laws do not apply]. It must decompose naturally. If one ground the corpse and then left its remains until they decomposed naturally or a portion of the body decomposed while the person was alive, he died, and then the entire body decomposed, there is an unresolved doubt [concerning the ruling]. Hence, if [a nazirite] becomes impure because of this rekev, there is an unresolved doubt whether he is impure. Similarly, there is an unresolved doubt whether [a nazirite] is impure if he contacts impurity from a fourth of a kav of bones coming from the backbone or the skull when he is under the same shelter as they are.

[With regard to] all of these twelve [sources] of impurity that we listed: If a nazirite touches one of these sources, carries it, covers it from above with [a portion of his body], [the source of] impurity covers [a portion of] the nazirite's [body], or the nazirite and [the source of] impurity were located under the same shelter, [the nazirite becomes impure]. 1:10-11. He must perform the shaving [required because of] impurity and bring the sacrifices [required because of] impurity. All [of the days he observed] are invalidated. The only exception is a rekev. It does not convey impurity when one touches it, for it is impossible to touch it entirely [at the same time], for it is not a single mass. 2:2). If, however, one carried it or became impure because one was under the same shelter, he must perform the shaving.

Similarly, if a nazirite touches or carries a bone from a corpse - even if it is merely the size of a barley-corn - he must perform a shaving because of it and bring the sacrifices [required because of] impurity. All [of the days he observed] are invalidated. A bone the size of a barley corn does not, however, convey impurity 2:8 and in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohelot 1:8, 2:3) the Rambam explains that this concept is derived from the exegesis of Numbers 14:19: "When a person dies in a tent." Implied is that the object that conveys impurity must clearly indicate that it comes from a person and this is not true of a bone this small. if one was under the same shelter.
If, by contrast, [a nazirite] becomes impure because of contact with one of the following twelve matters, [the days he observed] are not invalidated:
a) a clod of earth from the Diaspora; 2:3), the Rambam writes that in the Diaspora, people are not as careful with regard to burial and will bury a corpse anywhere. Accordingly, our Sages feared that perhaps a small portion of a bone would become mixed together with earth. Hence, they decreed that all earth from the Diaspora -even if brought to Eretz Yisrael - conveys ritual impurity. See also Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 2:16.
Based on Chapter 2, Halachot 21-22, we are forced to say that we are speaking about an instance where a nazirite from Eretz Yisrael came in contact with the earth of the Diaspora. If a nazirite vow is taken in the Diaspora, different laws apply as stated there (Radbaz).
b) [earth from] a field in which a grave had been plowed;). both of these convey impurity through touch or if they were carried; (shelter).
c) branches which emerge from trees, 13:1-2 where the Rambam writes that for a shelter to convey ritual impurity according to Scriptural Law, the shelter must be a handbreadth by a handbreadth. protrusions that emerge from fences, from a bed, a camel, or the like, cover him and one of the twelve sources of impurity [mentioned in the Halachah 2];. The standard printed text follows a different - and somewhat difficult to comprehend - version. See the conclusion of Hilchot Tuma'at Meit 19:6 where the Rambam discusses this issue and states that such impurity is midivrei sofrim, "from the words of the Sages."
d) he becomes impure by being under the same shelter as a quarter of a kav of bones that do not constitute the majority of the number of the corpse's bones, nor the greater portion of his structure;
e) he became impure because of a revi'it of blood from a corpse which conveys ritual impurity whether one touches it, carries it, or is found under the same shelter; 54a). f) he became impure because he touched or was under the same shelter as a gravestone 2:15. or a stone at the side of a grave; for they convey impurity in either of these two ways; g) he became impure because of contact with a limb cut from a living person or a corpse which does not have sufficient flesh upon it. 2:3.

Even though in all the above situations, [the nazirite] is impure for seven days and he must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days, he should not perform the shaving [required when emerging from] impurity, nor bring the sacrifices [required at that time], nor are his initial days invalidated. Nevertheless, the days when he is impure are not counted as part of his nazirite vow.

When [a nazirite] touches a shelter in which a corpse is found or utensils that are touching a corpse, 5:3). he should not have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days. It appears to me 7:3 which links these two matters with those mentioned in Halachah 6. The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's statement, maintaining that for this law to apply the utensils must be touching the corpse at the time he is touching the utensils. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam would also accept this conception and states that it appears to be indicated by the Rambam's wording here. Others, however, note that the Rambam's wording in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit, loc. cit., does not lead to that conclusion. that this law is unique to a nazirite. Any other person who contracts impurity that persists for seven days from utensils must have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days, as will be explained in Hilchot Tuma'at Meit. Similarly, it appears to me that the reason [a nazirite] does not have [the ashes of the Red Heifer] sprinkled [upon him] on the third and seventh days if he touched utensils [that convey such ritual impurity] is so that the days on which he is impure because [of contact with] the utensil will be counted as part of the days of his nazirite vow.). This constitutes a difference between the subjects mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in Halachah 6.

When a nazirite contracts tzara'at and has his status [as a metzora] defined,, as stated in Leviticus 13:11. all of the days during which he is set apart [as a metzora] and the seven days that he counts after purifying himself from his tzara'at between the first shaving is purged of that affliction, he must bring sacrifices and shave his hair. Afterwards, he may enter the camp of the Jewish people, but may not dwell within his own tent for seven days. and the second shaving:9). do not count as days of his nazirite vow. 7:3). The days when he is quarantined, when we wait to evaluate whether a blemish that he possesses is tzara'at or not. See Leviticus 13:4-5; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 7:2. by contrast, are counted [as part of his nazirite vow].). Similarly, if either a male or a female has a zav emission from their flesh, when he has an emission from his urinary tract similar, but not identical to that which results from gonorrhea. A woman becomes a zavah when she experiences vaginal bleeding at times other than would be expected due to her menstrual cycle. In both cases, the individuals are ritually impure. See Leviticus, ch. 15. all of the days of the emission are counted as part of their [nazirite vow] although they are impure. This matter is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

Needless to say, if [a nazirite] becomes impure as a result of other sources of impurity that the days during which he is impure are counted [as part of his nazirite vow] and no days are invalidated. If he becomes impure due to contact with a corpse during the time he is afflicted with tzara'at, all of the previous days are invalidated. [The rationale is that] he is still a nazirite, even though he is ritually impure.

A nazirite is permitted to become impure due to contact with a corpse when doing so is a mitzvah and may shave when doing so is a mitzvah. He is, however, forbidden to partake of [all] wine, whether in connection with a mitzvah or with regard to matters left to one's own choice.
What is implied? A person took an oath that he will drink wine on this day. Thus it is a mitzvah for him to drink. Afterwards, he took a nazirite vow. The nazirite vow takes effect and [supercedes] the oath he took. Hence he is forbidden to drink wine. Needless to say, [a nazirite] is forbidden [to partake of] the wine [over which] Kiddush and Havdalah are recited. For [associating these blessings with wine] is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. 29:1, 6. There is a Scriptural obligation to recite these prayers, but the association with a cup of wine is Rabbinic in origin (Radbaz).

What is meant by the statement that he is permitted to become impure due to contact with a corpse when it is a mitzvah? If he was walking on the road and encountered a corpse and there was no one else to bury it, 3:8 which elaborates concerning this matter with regard to the prohibition incumbent on priests not to come in contact with ritual impurity:
When does the above apply? When the priest is alone and there is no one else with him; even when he calls out on the road, no one answers him. If, however, when he calls others answer, this is not considered an unattended corpse. Instead, he should call to the others and they should come and tend to [the corpse].
he should become impure through contact with it and bury it. These matters were communicated by the Oral Tradition.

When a nazirite and a priest encounter a corpse that it is a mitzvah [to bury] the nazirite should [bury it and] become impure even though he invalidates the days [he observed] previously and must bring a sacrifice [because of his] impurity. The priest should not become impure. [The rationale is that the nazirite's] holiness is within the context of time - even if he took an everlasting nazirite vow; see also Radbaz, Hilchot Evel 3:9). - while the priest's holiness is beyond the context of time.

If two nazirites - one whose nazirite vow was for 30 days and one whose nazirite vow was for 100 days encounter [such a corpse] - the one whose nazirite vow was for 30 days should become impure. If one was a nazirite for a limited amount of time and the other was a nazirite forever, the nazirite for a limited amount of time should become impure. For the nazirite for all time has a higher degree of holiness.

What is meant by the statement that he is permitted to shave when doing so is a mitzvah? When a nazirite contracts tzara'at and becomes healed in the midst of the days of his nazirite vow, he should shave all of his hair.
[The rationale is that] by shaving, he fulfills a positive commandment, 11:1. for concerning a metzora, [Leviticus 14:8] states: "And he shall shave all of his hair." Whenever there is [a conflict between] a positive commandment and a negative commandment, if it is possible to observe both of them, that is desirable. If not, the positive commandment supercedes the negative commandment.
Nevertheless, when a nazirite shaves his hair during the midst of his nazirite vow, he violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, as [Numbers 6:5] states: "[His hair] is holy. He shall let the mane of the hair of his head grow." And [the observance of] a positive commandment does not supercede a negative commandment that [is reinforced by] a positive commandment. Why then does the positive commandment of shaving the blemish supercede his nazirite vow? Because the nazirite has already become impure because of the tzara'at and the days when he is defined as impure are not counted [towards the fulfillment of his vow], as we explained. [Hence,] his [hair] is not holy during these days. Thus the positive commandment [mentioned above] is withdrawn and only the negative commandment [Leviticus, loc. cit.]: "A razor shall not pass over his head" alone remains incumbent upon him. Therefore the positive commandment of shaving [because of the tzara'at] can come and supercede it. 5a, the Rambam favors the reason he gave, for there are some nazirites who do not have the option of absolving their nazirite vows (see Chapter 3, Halachah 14).