Rambam In-Depth: Nazir vs. Kohein — Who Has Greater Kedushah?

🌟 Welcome to Rambam In-Depth! 🌟

In this shiur we explore a fascinating and nuanced halacha from the Rambam, Hilchos Nezirus Perek Zayin Halacha Yud Gimmel.

The scenario: a Nazir and a Kohein both encounter a Meis Mitzvah — an unattended corpse with no one else to bury it. Both are obligated to act, but only one should become Tamei. Who goes first?

The Rambam rules: the Nazir — even though becoming Tamei causes him to lose all the days he has kept, start over, and bring a Korban Tumah.

🔑 The reason: a Nazir’s Kedushah is שעה קדושת — temporary — while a Kohein’s Kedushah is Kedushas Olam — eternal.

But then the Rambam raises his own challenge: what if the Nazir took a vow to be a Nazir Olam — for his entire life? Now both have a lifelong Kedushah. So who wins?

In this shiur, Rabbi Greenberg walks through multiple answers from the Rishonim and Acharonim:

📜 The Lechem Mishneh & Tosafos: Since the minimum Nezirus is 30 days, it proves Nezirus is fundamentally non-intrinsic — even a Nazir Olam cannot elevate it to the level of intrinsic Kedushah.

📜 A second answer from the Lechem Mishneh (the Rambam’s preferred view): A Nazir Olam’s Kedushah only begins from the moment of the vow — not from birth. And unlike a Kohein, a Nazir can be Meishil (renounce his vow), proving his Kedushah can be neutralized.

📜 The Rashash: Kedushas Olam means the Kedushah is inherited — a Kohein’s child is also a Kohein, but a Nazir’s child is not a Nazir.

Then a deeper question arises from the Shaar HaMelech, based on the Ra’avad in the Ran:

⚖️ In a Pikuach Nefesh situation, multiple prohibitions outweigh a single more stringent prohibition (e.g., you’d violate Shabbos rather than feed Neveilah, where each bite is a new Lav). But a Nazir has four Lavin — more than the Kohein’s one. So shouldn’t the Nazir be MORE stringent?

Three answers are presented: ✅ Shaar HaMelech: By a Nazir it’s one act with multiple Lavin — fundamentally different from Neveilah where the act is repeated each time, making each bite a new act of rebellion. ✅ Achi’ezer (based on Maharit): Nazirus is a Torah-granted status (not Issur Gavra or Issur Cheftza), and all the individual Lavin flow from one shared source — so the Meis Mitzvah heter removes the status entirely, making all Lavin irrelevant at once. ✅ The Ran leshitaso: For Pikuach Nefesh, the Torah is only Docheh the Issur (pushes it aside) — so you still minimize. But for Meis Mitzvah, it is Hutra entirely — there is no Issur at all. Whether it’s one Lav or four is therefore completely irrelevant.

💬 QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

• Do you find the Ran’s Docheh/Hutra distinction most compelling? Why?
• How does the Maharit’s category of “Torah-granted status” change how you think about Nezirus?
• Which answer to the Nazir Olam question does the Rambam himself seem to prefer, and why?

📚 SOURCES IN THIS SHIUR:

• Rambam, Hilchos Nezirus 7:13
• Lechem Mishneh ad loc.
• Tosafos (Nezirus 30 days)
• Rashash
• Shaar HaMelech (Ra’avad in the Ran, Yoma — Pikuach Nefesh)
• Achi’ezer (based on Maharit — Issur Gavra / Cheftza / Status)
• Ran leshitaso — Docheh vs. Hutra