(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a Nazir became Tamei after the blood of one of his Korbanos was thrown on the Mizbe'ach, this cancels everything;

Chachamim say, he brings the other Korbanos and becomes Tahor.

Chachamim: A case occurred with Miryam from Tarmod. After the blood of one of her Korbanos was thrown, they told her that her daughter was dangerously sick. She went and found her dead. The sages ruled that she brings the other Korbanos and becomes Tehorah.

(Gemara) Question: R. Eliezer contradicts himself!

There (Perek 3), he says that [Tum'ah after Melos] cancels only 30 [days], and here he says so (it cancels everything)!

(R. Yochanan): Here, R. Eliezer means that he cancels all his Korbanos.

Obviously, if he became Tamei without his hair falling out [R. Eliezer says in our Mishnah that this cancels everything].

Question: If his hair fell out and afterwards he became Tamei [what would R. Eliezer say? Now that he cannot shave, perhaps it does not cancel!]

Answer: Is this not R. Eliezer? R. Eliezer is from Beis Shamai;

(Beraisa): If a Nazir's hair fell out, Beis Shamai say, he must pass a razor over his head. Beis Hillel say, he need not pass a razor over his head. (Beis Shamai hold that he must pass a razor over his head whether or not he has hair. Therefore, even if his hair fell out, he must become 'shave' for Tum'ah, and seven days later 'shave' for Taharah, and bring all the Korbanos, even what he brought before he became Tamei. We explained this like OHR SOMAYACH Hilchos Nezirus 6:1.)

Correction: Our Mishnah should say 'he becomes Tahor, and [afterwards] brings his other Korbanos.' Our Mishnah should say [that the sages ruled that Miryam] 'becomes Tehorah, and [afterwards] brings her other Korbanos.'

(Mishnah): A Kohen Gadol or a Nazir may not be Mitamei for a relative who died. (He is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah);

R. Eliezer says, if a Kohen Gadol and a Nazir found a Mes Mitzvah on the road, the Kohen Gadol should be Mitamei [to bury him], and the Nazir should not be Mitamei;

Chachamim say, the Nazir should [bury him and] become Tamei, and the Kohen Gadol should not be Mitamei.

R. Eliezer: The Kohen should be Mitamei, for he does not bring a Korban for his Tum'ah. The Nazir should not be Mitamei, for he brings a Korban for his Tum'ah!

Chachamim: The Nazir should be Mitamei, for his Kedushah is not permanent. A Kohen's Kedushah is permanent!

(Gemara) Question: It says [about a Kohen Gadol] "v'Al Kol Nafshos Mes Lo Yavo" - what does the verse discuss?

It need not forbid him to be Mitamei for strangers. He is in the category of a Kohen Hedyot [who may not be Mitamei for strangers, just he has additional stringencies]!

Answer #1: Since it need not teach about strangers, use it to teach about relatives (he may not be Mitamei for relatives, unlike a Kohen Hedyot).

Objection: It says "v'Al Kol Nafshos Mes... [l'Aviv ul'Imo..." - it explicitly forbids relatives], and you say so?!

Answer (R. Chiya bar Gamda): From here, we see that [sometimes] the Torah writes an Isur after an Isur (a verse puts a second Lav on something already forbidden).

Note: If so, we can say that the verse is a second Lav for strangers. (PF)

Answer #2 (to Question (d)): [The verse comes] to permit [a Kohen Gadol to be Mitamei for] a Mes Mitzvah. (It is better to expound a new law, than to say that it comes to add a second Lav.)

Some want to learn [this Heter] from "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" - [for a Mes] amidst its nation (there are others to bury it) he may not be Mitamei, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah.

Some want to learn from [the next word of the above verse] "Lehechalo" - to profane himself [without need, for there are others to bury it] he may not be Mitamei, but he is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

Some want to learn from "[Kavor Tikberenu...] Ki Kilelas Elokim Taluy" - one who is commanded not to curse Hash-m, you are commanded [to bury him if he is] a Mes Mitzvah. One who is not commanded not to curse Hash-m, you are not commanded [about such] a Mes Mitzvah.

Objection: Nochrim [are commanded not to curse Hash-m, but Mes Mitzvah does not apply to them]!

Answer: The verse discusses one whose execution [for blasphemy is stoning, and includes] hanging. This excludes [a Nochri], who is killed by the sword. (PNEI MOSHE)

Question: "Kavor" is a Mitzvas Aseh. What is the source to include [burying] the sword with which he was killed, the wood on which he was hanged, the scarf which he was choked? It says "Tikberenu".

Suggestion: Perhaps [the sword, wood or scarf] is buried with him!

Rejection: "Ki Kavor Tikberenu" - there is burial for him, and [a separate burial] for his wood or rock. How does he do? He goes three [Tefachim] deep [into the ground], lest the plowshare bring them up.

Note: This implies that one may plow the area, i.e. they need not be buried in a cemetery. (PF)

"Tikberenu" - the entire [Mes], and not part of it. (PNEI MOSHE) "Tikberenu" teaches that if he left over (did not bury part), he did not do anything (he was not Yotzei).

Why does it say "Ki Kavor Tikberenu." This teaches that it is a Mes Mitzvah only if Rosho v'Rubo (his head and the majority of his body) is there.

(R. Yosi, in front of R. Yochanan): Just like a person is Mitamei for a Mes Mitzvah, so a person is Mitamei for a limb of a Mes Mitzvah.

Objection (R. Yochanan): Is there here [a Mes Mitzvah]?!

Answer (R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Ze'ira): The case is, [he already became Tamei for the rest of the body], and returns to be Mitamei [for a remaining limb].

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): [A Kohen Hedyot] does not become Tamei for Ever Min ha'Chai of his father, but he is Mitamei for a bone ki'Se'orah (the size of a barley seed) from his father.

R. Yehudah says, just like one is Mitamei for a bone ki'Se'orah from his father, so he is Mitamei for Ever Min ha'Chai of his father.

A case occurred with Yosi ben Pachsas. His foot was infected (e.g. gangrene); the doctor entered to cut it off. He told [the doctor] when you leave [it connected] like a hair's breadth, inform me! He cut it, left a hair's breadth, and informed him.

Yosi called Nechuniyah his son, and said 'my son - until now, you were obligated to deal with me. From now and onwards, leave, for one may not be Mitamei for Ever Min ha'Chai of his father.

When the matter came to Chachamim, they said about him "Yesh Tzadik Oved b'Tzidko" - the Tzadik suffers, and retains his righteousness.