Nazir

GEMARA. It was stated: Rabbah, citing R. Huna, said: Scripture [speaking of the nazirite] makes the comprehensive statement, He shall not make himself unclean;  when it adds, He shall not enter [by a dead body],  [its intention is] to utter a [separate] warning against defilement [by contact] and a [separate] warning against entering [a tent],  but not against defilement [by contact] from two scources [at the same time].  R. Joseph, however, said: By God! R. Huna said that even for defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time there are separate penalties]. For R. Huna has said that a nazirite, standing in a cemetery, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or some other corpse, and touched it incurs a penalty.  Now why should this be so? Is he not actually being defiled all the time?  It follows therefore that R. Huna must have said that even for defilement [by contact] from two sources [he is to receive separate penalties]. Abaye raised an objection from the following. [A Baraitha teaches:] 'A priest,  carrying a corpse on his back, who was handed the corpse of his own [relative] or some other corpse and touched it, might be thought to have incurred a penalty,  but the text says, Nor profane [the sanctuary]  [prescribing a penalty] for one not already profaned [and thus] excluding this man who is already profaned?  — [R. Joseph] replied: But our Mishnah should cause you the same perplexity, for we learn [there], FOR DEFILING HIMSELF [BY CONTACT] WITH THE DEAD ALL DAY LONG HE INCURS ONE PENALTY ONLY. IF HE WAS TOLD, 'DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF,' 'DO NOT DEFILE YOURSELF,' AND HE DID DEFILE HIMSELF, HE HAS INCURRED A PENALTY FOR EACH [WARNING]. But why should this be so? Is he not already defiled? We can therefore only conclude that [the Mishnah and the Baraitha] contradict each other. [Abaye retorted:] There is no difficulty [in reconciling the Mishnah and the Baraitha]. The latter assumes that there is concatenation,  the former that there is no concatenation. Is then defilement through concatenation a Torah enactment? Has not R. Isaac b. Joseph said: R. Jannai said that defilement through concatenation was held to be effective only as it affects terumah and sacrificial meats,  but not the nazirite or a celebrant of the passover?  Now, if as you assert, it is a Torah [defilement], why should there be this difference?  — There concatenation of one man with another is meant;  in our case concatenation of the man with the corpse. 'But not against defilement [by contact] from two sources [at the same time,'  said Rabbah] because he is actually defiled already. But in the case of defilement [by contact] and entering [a tent containing a corpse] is he not also already defiled?  — R. Johanan replied: In the latter case [he is supposed to enter] a house [whilst undefiled];  in the former, [which takes place] in the open [there cannot be two penalties].