It seems to me from the 6th perek of nozir, that we see multiple times that rebbi learns from the posuk of bemosom that a nozir/kihen is allowed to be metamey other tumos which are not death related. But he also seems to be making the same derosho from the gezero shovo of imo imo by nozir and kohen godol. Why does he need 2 sources for this same simple limmud?
Avrumi Hersh , London england
Shalom!
The Derashah of "b'Mosam" teaches me that a Kohen Hedyot is not forbidden to come in contact with a Metzora or a Zav or their Tum'os. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches us that this also applies to a Kohen Gadol. One cannot learn a Heter from Kohen Hedyot to Kohen Gadol with a straightforward Binyan Av as a Kohen Gadol is more stringent in his Dinim
Shimon Brodie
I don't think that is accurate.
Tosafos on 43a says clearly that the derosho of bemosom is discussing a nozir, not a kohen hedyot.
And rebbi is darshening imo-imo for BOTH nozir and kohen godol.
He certainly doesn't need 2 derosho for nozir!?
Tosfos means that the "b'Mosam" that we are currently discussing is not the "b'Mosam" that was brought earlier from Bamidbar 6; rather, this "b'Mosam" is written in the Parshah of Nazir -- see the Mefaresh "Rebbi Omer." I personally do not see in Tosfos' words any basis for a Machlokes. In addition, I think this is borne out from the Gemara on Daf 48a (top) and Tosfos there DH v'Leima and the beginning of Tosfos DH v'Ein. Let me know what you think.
SB