גמ׳ אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִקְרָא מָלֵא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא״, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יָבֹא״ – לְהַזְהִירוֹ עַל הַטּוּמְאָה, לְהַזְהִירוֹ עַל הַבִּיאָה. אֲבָל טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה – לֹא.

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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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.

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְהוֹשִׁיטוּ לוֹ מֵתוֹ וּמֵת אַחֵר, וְנָגַע בּוֹ – חַיָּיב. אַמַּאי? הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ, אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲפִילּוּ טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה.

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?

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: כֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מֵת מוּנָּח עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ, וְהוֹשִׁיטוּ לוֹ מֵתוֹ וּמֵת אַחֵר, וְנָגַע בּוֹ, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ – בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּלָּל, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁהוּא מְחוּלָּל וְעוֹמֵד.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a baraita : With regard to a priest who had a corpse placed on his shoulder, 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, one might have thought that he should be liable even for this contact. Therefore, the verse states, with regard to the prohibition against a High Priest becoming impure: “And he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God” (Leviticus 21:12). This teaches that the prohibition of impurity applies to one who is not yet profaned, excluding this one who is already profaned and standing in that state of ritual impurity.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְתִיקְשִׁי לָךְ מַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: הָיָה מִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים כָּל הַיּוֹם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״ – חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְאַמַּאי? הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים.

Rav Yosef said to him: But if, as you claim, one is not liable for contracting one impurity after another, the mishna should pose a difficulty for you. As we learned in the mishna: If a nazirite became ritually impure from corpses many times all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he continues to become impure, he is liable for each and every time he was warned. But why should this be so? He has already become impure and is standing in his state of impurity.

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא אַהֲדָדֵי. לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּחִיבּוּרִין, כָּאן – שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין.

Rather, the mishna and baraita pose a difficulty for each other. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here the baraita is referring to a concurrent contact with impurity, there the mishna is referring to impurity that was not a concurrent contact. He touched the second corpse only after he had separated himself from the first, and therefore he is liable for each impurity.

וְטוּמְאָה בְּחִיבּוּרִין דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא? הָא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֹא אָמְרוּ טוּמְאָה בְּחִיבּוּרִין אֶלָּא לִתְרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל לְנָזִיר וְעוֹשֶׂה פֶסַח – לֹא. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא?

The Gemara asks: And this halakha , that a nazirite is exempt from being flogged for a second contact with a corpse in a case of concurrent impurity, does it apply by Torah law? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef say that Rabbi Yannai said: They stated the principle of concurrent impurity only with regard to partaking of teruma and consecrated foods, i.e., that one who touches a person who is in contact with a corpse is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse for seven days. However, with regard to a nazirite, i.e., the question of whether a nazirite is considered ritually impure and has to bring offerings due to this contact, and with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal offering, this halakha does not apply. And if you say that this halakha applies by Torah law, what is different between the case of teruma and the case of a nazirite?

כָּאן – בְּחִיבּוּרֵי אָדָם בְּאָדָם, כָּאן – בְּחִיבּוּרֵי אָדָם בְּמֵת.

The Gemara explains that there are two different types of concurrent impurity. Here, where there is a difference between teruma and a nazirite, it is referring to concurrent contact of one person with another person. If one touched another while the other was in contact with a corpse, the impurity of the first is by rabbinic law. By contrast, there it is referring to concurrent contact of a person with a corpse. One who is touching a corpse is considered linked to impurity by Torah law with regard to his second contact with a corpse.

אֲבָל טוּמְאָה וְטוּמְאָה לָא, דְּהָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵים.

The Gemara summarizes: The fact that one who is touching a corpse is not liable for contact with a second corpse leads to Rabba’s aforementioned ruling: However, with regard to contracting impurity from a corpse and again contracting impurity from a corpse, i.e., if a person contracted impurity imparted by a corpse and then touched another corpse while still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable for the second impurity, as he has already become impure and is standing in his state of ritual impurity.

טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה נַמִי, הָא מִיטַּמֵּא וְקָאֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּאן בַּבַּיִת,

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to impurity and entering one should say likewise, that when he enters an enclosure containing a corpse when he is in contact with a corpse, he has already become impure and is standing in his impurity. Why should he be flogged again for entering the enclosure? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of impurity and entering one must again distinguish between two instances: Here, where Rav Huna said that one will be liable for both contractions of impurity, it is referring to one who was pure and who went into a house that contained a corpse, rendering him liable twice. The entering the house and the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, occurred simultaneously, and therefore he is liable twice, once for contracting ritual impurity and once for violating the particular prohibition against a nazirite entering an enclosure with a corpse in it.

כָּאן בַּשָּׂדֶה.

Whereas there, where he is liable only once, it is referring to one who was in a field. In other words, if a nazirite touched a corpse in a field and subsequently entered an enclosure with a corpse in it while he was still in contact with the first corpse, he is not liable separately for that entering, as he was already ritually impure.