Halakhah sur Les Nombres 19:28

Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishnah, explains this mishnah in terms that echo our current state of knowledge. To quote the Rambam: "Hashem taught us in Numbers 19:13 that only when someone dies or when some animal dies is there a state of defilement. Even if a person be in a most terminal state, he does not cause ritual uncleanness [tum'ah]. Certainty of death is not the state associated with tum'ah; death is." The Rambam then goes on to define mefarkhes, the term that the Mishnah used for muscular tremors, or movement after decapitation. The lizard's tail moves for some time after it has been cut off from the rest of the body. This, however, also occurs to other living organisms "if the power or the source or the stimulus for movement is spread over all parts of the body. If it does not originate from a central point, then that is not a sign of life." The Rambam here is accurately describing the difference between the localized response of a muscle group to stimulus with the functioning of a central nervous system that integrates all parts of the body.

A few points need to be clarified before we begin our discussion. The Torah (Vayikra 21:1) forbids kohanim to come in contact with the dead. This restriction, however, applies only to male kohanim (Sotah 23b, cited by Rashi to Vayikra 21:1). Contact with the dead includes being in the same building as a dead body (Bemidbar 19:14). ²For a summary of whether this rule prohibits kohanim from entering hospitals, see Nishmat Avraham (2:209-210). For further discussion of this issue, see Techumin (19:323-334). Although children are not personally obligated to observe this restriction, adults cannot deliberately cause even the youngest of kohanim (even an infant) to come in contact with a dead body (Mishnah Berurah 343:3 and Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 373:1).

A corpse defiles by means of tactile contact and also, as stated in Numbers 19:14, defiles persons, vessels and artifacts present within the same tent. Moreover, as recorded by Rambam, Hilkhot Tum'at Met 1:10, persons and implements directly above or below a corpse also become defiled. Such defilement occurs regardless of the distance between the person or object and the corpse because a corpse defiles ad coelum et ad infernos unless there is an interposition (ḥazizah) consisting of an object not subject to defilement.³For sources of the position that even an object or substance subject to defilement may serve as an interposition when actually shaped as a tent, see Rambam, Hilkhot Tum’at Met 13:4; Rash (Rabbenu Shimshon), Rosh and R. Ovadiah Bartenura, Oholot 8:1; as well as Mishnah Aḥaronah, Oholot 8:1 and Oholot 7:2. See also Ḥazon Ish, Oholot 9:13. Cf., Pnei Yehoshu‘a, Shabbat 19b. The Gemara, Hullin 125b, records a controversy with regard to whether defilement occurring in such fashion is in the category of tactile defilement or whether the basis of that defilement lies in the fact that the person or the object, regardless of its size, has in effect formed itself into a "tent" over the corpse.⁴As will be noted subsequently, there is yet a further ramification of the defilement occasioned by a tent: If the object overhanging the corpse is at least a square tefaḥ in area and there is a space of a cubic tefaḥ between the object and the corpse, the object acquires the status of a “tent” with the result that persons and implements beneath any part of the overhanging object become defiled. Rabbenu Tam, Sefer ha-Yashar, no. 275, explains that the rule providing that a tent serves as an interposition preventing defilement from ascending ad coelum is based upon the verse "every one that comes into the tent and every thing that is in the tent shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers 19:14). The import of the text is twofold in nature: a) a tent serves to impart defilement to everything under its roof; and b) it serves to prevent defilement from extending beyond its confines.

LAWS CONCERNING THE RED HEIFER.
These comprise two affirmative precepts: 1) the Red Heifer; 2) the uncleanliness of the waters of sprinkling (Num. 19:9-22) and of the mode in which these are to be used for purification.

(Zayin) There is still more. This [required] study must be from love, such that he not use this trait for anything else at all, ‘but rather his desire is for the Torah of the Lord.’ And these are the words of the Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 3:4-7:
The Israelites did not accept the Torah until the Holy One, blessed be He, arched the mountain over them like a vessel, etc. If you should say it was because of the Written Law, isn’t it true that as soon as He said to them, “Will you accept the Torah,” they all responded (Exod. 24:7), “We will do and hear?” … But rather He said this to them because of the Oral Law, etc. And its jealousy is as harsh as Sheol.²⁸The pit, usually a reference to the nether-world. One does not study the Oral Law unless he loves the Holy One, blessed be He, with all his heart, etc., as it is stated (Deut. 6:5), “And you shall love, etc.” Whence do you learn that this word, “love,” refers only to studying the [Oral Law]? Observe what is written after this (Deut. 6:6): “And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart.” And what study is upon the heart? Scripture (Deut. 6:7) states [immediately thereafter], “And you shall review it to your children.” [Hence] this is the study that requires review (i.e. the Oral Law). We learn from these verses that the first part of the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) does not mention a reward given in this world, while the second part does: “And if you shall hearken diligently, etc., I will give the rain of your land in its season” (Deut. 11:13). This reward is given to those who perform the commandments even though they neglect study [of the Oral Law], etc. As anyone who loves material riches and earthly pleasures is incapable of studying the Oral Law. [This is because] there is considerable anguish and sleeplessness in (store for him who studies) it; one wastes and neglects himself on its account. Therefore its reward is in the hereafter, as it is said (Isaiah 9:1), “The people that walk in darkness have seen a great light,” etc. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, established two academies (at Sura and Pumbeditha) for the Israelites where they studied the Torah day and night and where they assembled from all parts of the world twice each year – in the months of Adar and Elul. They came together to “battle” the problems encountered in the Torah until they had resolved them and reached a definitive decision concerning the law. [See there, as it is lengthy.]
And [the Rabbis] said in the Midrash that the Holy One, blessed be He, forced us [to accept the Oral Law] by arching the mountain, such that the Torah would not be severed from us forever. As with a [woman] forced [to have sexual relations], it is written (Deut. 22:19), “he may not send her away all of his days.”²⁹See the next paragraph and note 34. Also the manna that they ate in the wilderness was [given] with this intention. As it is written in Maggid Mesharim of Beit Yosef (R. Yosef Karo), that the manna that the Israelites ate was necessary in order [for them] to receive the Torah without any choice. And these are the words in Yalkut Reuveni, Beshelach: [The angel named] Yafefiyah who is the one who rained down the manna upon Israel, is numerically equivalent (with the letters adding up to 197) to Katseh, who is the angelic minister of Torah; whereas they said (Num. 21:5), “and our souls are sick (katseh)” – to make known that they were sick and disgusted of the manna and of the Torah. See there. And this was forcing them to receive the Torah, as the manna was coming from the minister of the Torah, and it was the bread of mighty ones from which the ministering angels are sustained. [Hence] they no longer had any physical desire or inclination. Rather it was [therewith only] the love of the Torah and of the commandments that was implanted in their hearts. And this [love] remained for [future] generations among the enlightened ones about whom it is stated (Num. 19:14), “when a man dies in a tent.”³⁰ See Berakhot 63b.

(Kaf) ‘According to the actions of a man, so is his reward.’ And we found that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said about Kivrot-Hataavah that they had a strange desire – as they saw that the meat killed and they nevertheless did not turn away from their desire. And that was because of their quarrel about the manna and its forcing the Torah [upon them]; as they wanted to choose love and they rejected forced love.⁴³See Paragraph Chet above. And so He repaid them according to their trait, as this strange desire that was given to them was also forced (compulsive) – even though it killed, they did not veer from it. And from this, the enlightened one can understand [that] if there is such an amazing power in this strange desire that one should kill oneself for it, all the more so should the heart of a man be enthused with an amazing and very awesome yearning for the Torah and for the commandments, [such] that a man himself [thereby] fulfill “When a man dies in a tent.”⁴⁴The reference is to the statement of Resh Lakish in Berakhot 63b based on the quote from Num. 19:14 cited in the text, “From where is it derived that matters of Torah are only retained by one who kills himself over it? As it is stated, ‘This is the law (Torah): When a man dies in a tent.’”  And he should not be concerned with his flour; but rather he should be cruel to himself and ‘meditate about His Torah night and day.’ And then it will be good for him in this [world] and the next [world]; and ‘none of the anathema will cling to his hand,’ after the separation of his soul – that he should, God forbid, be in the hollow of the sling, as I have written. And in the second chapter of Sotah,⁴⁵Sotah 21a, which is actually in the third chapter. they said about this, “A parable about a man who is walking [on the way] in the blackness of night, etc. When he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them. […] What is the meaning of the crossroads? Rav Ḥisda said, ‘This is [referring to] a Torah scholar and the day of death.’” As since he is a Torah scholar, the Torah removes his soul from the mud of the physical. And through this, ‘the spirit returns to God Who bestowed it’ – and how he bestowed it – and ‘the dust returns to the ground as it was.’ And this is the crossroads – each one of his “men” turns to his path [and] will no [longer] meet one another; and then [his soul] will be completely saved.

As it is required for the house of Israel to read from the scrolls, and to teach in the Torah, and to conclude with the prophets, on each day according to its subject matter — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot, as it is written "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44), and it is commanded to read every matter at its time and extrapolate on the subject of the day, as taught, "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:¹In our manuscripts, it says "The Rabbis taught" here. Moses ordained for Israel that they would investigate and extrapolate on the matter of the day — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot" (Megillah 32a:17). On Ḥanukkah we read the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim we read "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). "And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for the new moon, and one from Ki Tissa. And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for Rosh Ḥodesh, and one for Ḥanukkah" (Megillah 29b:22). On Ḥanukkah and on Purim three people read, on Rosh Ḥodesh and on Ḥol ha-Moed four people read — since there is Musaf, we add [mosifin] a person. When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). When it falls on another day of the week, we advance the reading of the portion of the sheqalim, and interrupt the special readings. On the second² Shabbat of the month we read 'Remember' (Deuteronomy 25:17—17). On the third, the red heifer (Numbers 19:1—22). On the fourth, 'This month' (Exodus 12:1—20). If it falls on the sixth, then 'This month' is on the fifth. After that they return to the regular order. And everyone interrupts the order for Rosh Hodesh, Ḥanukah, Purim, fast days, festival days, and Yom Kippur (Mishnah Megillah 3:5). On Pesaḥ they read the portion of the festivals. And a mnemonic is: "during the bull, sanctify with money, cut in the desert, send the firstborn." On Shavuot, "On the third day" (Exodus 19:1–20:23), and on the second day, "Every firstborn" (Deuteronomy 15:19—16:37). On Rosh Hashanah, "And haShem remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1–34) and on the second day, "And God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1—24). On Yom Kippur, "after the death" (Leviticus 16:1—34). On Sukkot, the offerings for Sukkot (Numbers 29:12—34). On Ḥanukkah, the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). On Rosh Hodesh, "And on your new months" (Numbers 28:1–15). On the watches, the matter of creation (Genesis 1:1—2:3). On fast days, "And Moses petitioned" (Exodus 32:11—14, Exodus 34:1–10). On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat in the afternoon they read according to the order, but they are not counted in the order. As it is said, "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44) — it's commanded that they read each and every one at its time.

Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, though, cites the Mishnah’s (Parah 3:2) description of the extreme measures that were taken to ensure the tahorah of the individuals who drew water for the parah adumah (red heifer) ceremony.¹⁴The only way for a person to remove himself from the status of tum’at meit is to go through a process of purification (described in Bemidbar 19:1-22) involving the ashes of the parah adumah. The Mishnah describes how women would come to specially designed homes in Yerushalayim where they would give birth and raise children who were guaranteed not to have become tamei. This Mishnah, contends Rav Zalman Nechemia, clearly indicates that the concern for tum’ah begins only at birth, as the women would come to this type of home only to give birth, not immediately after conception. Apparently, the mother does shield her fetus from tum’ah, presumably because the fetus is tum’ah belu’ah.¹⁵This inference from the Gemara also is made by the Me’iri (Sukkah 21a). To defend the Avnei Milu’im, Rav Zalman Nechemia suggests that a fetus can become tamei in utero, but loses all tum’ah when born because it emerges as a new entity (see, however, Teshuvot Binyan Tzion Hachadashot 96). He notes, however, that this answer is inadequate for the Avnei Milu’im himself, who writes (Ketzot Hachoshen 209:1)¹⁶The author of the Avnei Milu’im, Rav Aryeh Leib ben Yosef Hakohen, also wrote the Ketzot Hachoshen. that a fetus does not emerge as a new entity at birth.

4. Rabbis Munk and Lombard, Yeshurun, X, 563, note 33, suggest that, although presence of the requisite empty space may negate defilement engendered by the corpse, nevertheless, the bricks or cinder blocks are themselves a source of defilement and, as is quite evident, there is no empty space above the bricks or concrete blocks to prevent such defilement from affecting an object or person above the grave. Both the verse "And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain by a sword or a bone of a man or a grave shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers 19:16) and the verse "and a clean person … shall sprinkle it upon the tent … and upon him that touched the bone or the slain or the dead or the grave" (Numbers 19:18) posit defilement for contact with a grave no less so than for contact with a corpse. In their recently published monograph dealing with the laws of priestly defilement, Tohorat ha-Kohanim (Jerusalem, 5762), pp. 91f., Rabbis Munk and Lombard, citing the comments of Sifri, show that the "grave" specified in Numbers 19:16 and 19:18 is not the earth in which the corpse is buried but a man-made tomb or structure in which the body is placed within the ground. Accordingly, the cinder blocks or bricks themselves constitute a tomb or "grave" which, in turn, causes defilement independently from the corpse.

4. Rabbis Munk and Lombard, Yeshurun, X, 563, note 33, suggest that, although presence of the requisite empty space may negate defilement engendered by the corpse, nevertheless, the bricks or cinder blocks are themselves a source of defilement and, as is quite evident, there is no empty space above the bricks or concrete blocks to prevent such defilement from affecting an object or person above the grave. Both the verse "And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain by a sword or a bone of a man or a grave shall be unclean seven days" (Numbers 19:16) and the verse "and a clean person … shall sprinkle it upon the tent … and upon him that touched the bone or the slain or the dead or the grave" (Numbers 19:18) posit defilement for contact with a grave no less so than for contact with a corpse. In their recently published monograph dealing with the laws of priestly defilement, Tohorat ha-Kohanim (Jerusalem, 5762), pp. 91f., Rabbis Munk and Lombard, citing the comments of Sifri, show that the "grave" specified in Numbers 19:16 and 19:18 is not the earth in which the corpse is buried but a man-made tomb or structure in which the body is placed within the ground. Accordingly, the cinder blocks or bricks themselves constitute a tomb or "grave" which, in turn, causes defilement independently from the corpse.

With regard to the defilement engendered by a corpse, Numbers 19:14 specifies that "… every [person] who comes into the tent shall be unclean seven days." The immediately following verse, Numbers 19:15, spells out the circumstances in which vessels and utensils are defiled: "And every open vessel which has no covering close-bound upon it is unclean." The clear inference is that the converse, i.e., a closed vessel that is tightly sealed, does not become defiled. The Mishnah, Kelim 10:1, declares that not only is such a utensil not subject to defilement but the utensil also preserves anything that may be contained within its walls from becoming defiled. Rabbinic tradition teaches that biblical law limits the capacity of a sealed utensil to preserve its contents from defilement to vessels such as pottery and earthenware that are not subject to defilement by tactile contact with the exterior of the vessel.

With regard to the defilement engendered by a corpse, Numbers 19:14 specifies that "… every [person] who comes into the tent shall be unclean seven days." The immediately following verse, Numbers 19:15, spells out the circumstances in which vessels and utensils are defiled: "And every open vessel which has no covering close-bound upon it is unclean." The clear inference is that the converse, i.e., a closed vessel that is tightly sealed, does not become defiled. The Mishnah, Kelim 10:1, declares that not only is such a utensil not subject to defilement but the utensil also preserves anything that may be contained within its walls from becoming defiled. Rabbinic tradition teaches that biblical law limits the capacity of a sealed utensil to preserve its contents from defilement to vessels such as pottery and earthenware that are not subject to defilement by tactile contact with the exterior of the vessel.

Advocacy of the position that the Jewish identity of either parent is sufficient to confer status as a Jew upon the child is, to a great extent, a product of the pressure generated by intermarried parents who have immigrated to Israel and seek recognition of their children as Jews on the part of the Israeli government. The landmark cases in this area are analyzed in detail in a work aptly titled The Impossible Dilemma (New York, 1976) by Oscar Kraines. In an article which appeared in the Summer 1976 issue of Conservative Judaism, Solomon Goldfarb called for what he candidly termed "a revolutionary change in the law" and a "daring interpretation of the law of conversion" in order to effect the desired recognition of the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers as Jews. This proposal, which received widespread coverage in the Anglo-Jewish press, calls for an innovation which is halakhically indefensible. The Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin 3:12 (and not only the less authoritative Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 19:3, quoted by Goldfarb), does discuss the admissibility of such a view only to reject it peremptorily by pointing to Ezra's insistence upon casting aside not only non-Jewish wives but their children as well. Ezra's rejection of the children of Jewish fathers born of non-Jewish wives is a clear indication of the gentile status of such children. To seize upon random views explicitly refuted in the Talmud itself and rejected by Jewish tradition over the centuries is to make a travesty of the halakhic process.

Rabbinic exegesis regards the phrase "For he will turn thy son from following Me" as descriptive rather than predictive. The verse serves to establish a legal principle rather than as a biblical prognostication. The child of a Jewish male born of the daughter of a gentile is ipso facto turned from "following Me" because his status is that of a gentile who is not obliged to serve God by observing the commandments of the Torah. This interpretation is not simply an Oral Law tradition recorded by the Sages of the Talmud; it was known to, and accepted by, Ezra. In demanding that children of such unions be excluded from the Jewish faith-community Ezra declared, "And let it be done according to the Torah." Clearly, Ezra recognized the principle of matrilineal identity as being firmly rooted in the verses of the Pentateuch. It is noteworthy that when this was pointed out to Jacob of Naburaya he candidly conceded the argument and expressed relief at being preserved from causing others to accept an errant view and to commit the serious transgression involved in the circumcision of a gentile child on the Sabbath. A similar narrative, identical in all salient points, is found in Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 19:3.

The apparent incongruity in Rabad's position is explained by the late Rabbi Kook in his Mishpat Kohen, no. 96. Throughout the period in which the Temple stood, the Temple site was possessed of two distinct forms of sanctity: sanctity by virtue of the fact that it was the "encampment" of the Shekhinah, and a second sanctity associated with the "walls" of the Temple structure. Rabbi Bezalel Zolti, Torah She-be-'al Peh (5728), X, draws essentially the same distinction and asserts that historically these two different sanctifications occurred at two distinct times: the Temple structure was sanctified by King Solomon, whereas the site was sanctified as the "encampment" of the Shekhinah by King David many years before the Temple was actually built. Punishment of karet is prescribed for defilement of the Temple itself, i.e., the physical structure, as indicated in Numbers 19:20, "That person shall be cut off from the midst of the community for he has defiled the Temple of God." The second prohibition, carrying with it a lesser punishment, reads "And they shall not defile their encampment in the midst whereof I dwell" (Num. 5:3). The latter reference makes no mention of the sanctity of the "walls" but refers to the sanctity of the "encampment." Rabad's position, then, is that the sanctity of the "walls" lapsed with the destruction of the Temple, whereas the sanctity of the "encampment" continues and is in no way abrogated by the destruction of the Temple walls. Consequently, even according to Rabad, the prohibition "They shall not defile their encampment," forbidding a person who has become ritually impure to enter the Temple Mount, remains in force even in our day.

That He prohibited any impure person from entering the Sanctuary (the Tabernacle) - and everything that is similar to it for [all] the generations: All of the courtyard and from the Gate of Nikanor onwards, which is the courtyard of the Israelites. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "so that they shall not render their camp impure" (Numbers 5:3). And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 14b), they said, "One who entered the Temple [while] impure - a punishment is written and a prohibition is written: The punishment - 'he has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised' (Numbers 19:13). The prohibition - 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And in the Mekhilta: "'Command the Children of Israel to send away from the camp' - is with a positive commandment. But from where [do we know] it is [also] with a negative commandment? You can say, 'so that they shall not render their camp impure.'" And the prohibition about this content has already been repeated with different language; and that His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, "and she shall not come into the sanctuary" (Leviticus 12:4). And in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1:1), they said, "Because it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the Children of Israel,' I would understand - whether [one enters] from its front or from its back and he is impure, he is liable. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and she shall not come into the sanctuary.'"And there it is explained that the law of a woman who has given birth and the law of other impure people is the same with regards to this. And they [also] said in the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12:13-14), about His saying "But if he does not wash and does not bathe his body" (Leviticus 17:16), "How is this? For [failure in] the bathing of his body, the punishment is excision, but for [failure in] the washing of his clothes, it is with forty [lashes]. And from where [do we know] that it is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects impure? It prohibited and punished, etc." Behold it has been made clear that one who transgresses this negative commandment - if he was intentional, he is punished with excision; and if he was inadvertent, he must bring a variable offering, as we explained in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Shevuot and in Horayot. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)

And that is that He commanded us to process the red heifer, so that its ashes be ready for one who needs it for purification from the impurity of a corpse - as He said, "and it shall be for the congregation of the Children of Israel" (Numbers 19:9). And the laws of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Parah. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Red Heifer 1-15.)

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

That an impure person not enter the entire Temple: That any impure person is prevented from entering the entire Temple - the likeness of which in the [future] generations is all of the yard from Nikanor Gate and inwards, which is the beginning of the yard of the Israelites - as it is stated (Numbers 5:3), "and they will not render your camps impure" - meaning to say the camp of the Divine Presence. And the proof of this being among the negative commandments is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara (Makkot 14b), "One who enters the Temple while impure [is liable for excision], as both the punishment and the warning are written [in the Torah.] The punishment is written (Numbers 19:13) 'the Tabernacle of God he has defiled and he shall be cut off.' The warning is written (Numbers 5:3) 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they also said in the Mekhilta (Sifrei Zuta on Bamidbar 5:3), "'Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp' - [that is] a positive commandment. From where do we derive [the] negative commandment? Since it is written, 'and they will not render your camps impure.'" And they said in Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Section 1 1), "Since it is stated (Leviticus 15:31), 'And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness[...],' I might understand, whether from its midst or from its back," meaning to say that one who approaches the Temple from its back while he is impure would be liable for excision; "it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledet (a woman after childbirth) (Leviticus 12:4), 'and into the sanctuary she shall not come,'" meaning to say the expression of coming is only about one who enters from the front. And there it is elucidated that the law of a yoledet and the other [cases of] impurity are the same regarding this.

The commandment of the red heifer: That Israel was commanded to burn the red heifer so that its ashes will be ready for anyone who needs it to be purified from the impurity of the dead, as it is stated (Numbers 19:2), "Speak to the Children of Israel and they shall take to you a red heifer," and it is written below this (Numbers 19:9), "It will be a safeguard for the Children of Israel." Even though my heart has given me the gumption to write hints of the simple reasons for the previous commandments, with the excuse that [this] work is to instruct my son and his young friends, may God protect them; on this commandment my hands are weak and I am afraid to open my mouth about it at all, since I have seen that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, spoke at length regarding the depth of its secret and greatness of its content; to the point that they said (Bemidbar Rabbah 19, Midrash Tanchuma 4:6:6) that King Solomon was able through his great wisdom to understand all the reasons of the Torah, except for this - as he stated about it (Ecclesiastes 7:23), "I have said that I will understand, but it is far from me." They also said in the Midrash Tanchuma 4:6:8, "Rabbi Yose BeRebbi Chanina says, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "To you I will reveal the reason for the red heifer, but not to others."'" And there are many other similar statements. And now, the listener should not think that the matter of its secret and the matter of its being an arational commandment (chok) is that the ashes affect purification, as one will find a similar [process] with other sacrifices for the person with a discharge or a new mother, whose purification is completed by the offering of their sacrifices.

The commandment of the red heifer: That Israel was commanded to burn the red heifer so that its ashes will be ready for anyone who needs it to be purified from the impurity of the dead, as it is stated (Numbers 19:2), "Speak to the Children of Israel and they shall take to you a red heifer," and it is written below this (Numbers 19:9), "It will be a safeguard for the Children of Israel." Even though my heart has given me the gumption to write hints of the simple reasons for the previous commandments, with the excuse that [this] work is to instruct my son and his young friends, may God protect them; on this commandment my hands are weak and I am afraid to open my mouth about it at all, since I have seen that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, spoke at length regarding the depth of its secret and greatness of its content; to the point that they said (Bemidbar Rabbah 19, Midrash Tanchuma 4:6:6) that King Solomon was able through his great wisdom to understand all the reasons of the Torah, except for this - as he stated about it (Ecclesiastes 7:23), "I have said that I will understand, but it is far from me." They also said in the Midrash Tanchuma 4:6:8, "Rabbi Yose BeRebbi Chanina says, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "To you I will reveal the reason for the red heifer, but not to others."'" And there are many other similar statements. And now, the listener should not think that the matter of its secret and the matter of its being an arational commandment (chok) is that the ashes affect purification, as one will find a similar [process] with other sacrifices for the person with a discharge or a new mother, whose purification is completed by the offering of their sacrifices.

From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Parah 1:1) the commandment of the heifer is that it be three or four years old, but if it was [older], it is [also] acceptable. And [that] we do not take a calf and raise her to maturity; but rather a cow (heifer), as it stated (Numbers 19:2), "and they shall take to you a heifer." And [that] that which it states about it "pure" (temimah), is to speak about perfect redness, such that two black or white hairs disqualify it. Even if it was shrunken (other textual variants read, dwarfed, meaning a dwarf), it is acceptable, so long as it is all red - as it does not need to be more perfect than other offerings. And if it had hairs whose roots were red and the tips were another color, it all goes according to the roots. And [so,] he trims the tips with a scissors down to the red.

And work [with it] disqualifies it, as it is written (Numbers 19:12), "that has borne no yoke upon it." And any labor is [considered equivalent] to a yoke; therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said that even if he placed a cloak on it, it is disqualified. If, however, it needed to be guarded and it was tied by a rope, it is acceptable (Mishnah Parah 2:3, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Red Heifer 1:7), but if it did not need guarding, it is disqualified, as any protection that is unnecessary is a burden. And it was purchased with money from the collection of the cell (Mishnah Shekalim 4:2). And a heifer that became blemished can be redeemed and it goes out to being non-sacred. And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yoma 88b) about the matter that it is the one who burns the heifer that is impure, that this is the one who assists in the burning - such as the one who turns over the meat, or throws in firewood, or [moves] the fire or stokes the coals to have the fire burn [better], and similar to these - but the one who lights the fire in the furnace, or arranges the wood, is pure, as is anyone who deals with it after it has become ashes.

The commandment of the impurity of a dead body: That we were commanded regarding the matter of impurity from a dead body to behave as the Torah commanded us about it, as it is stated (Numbers 19:14), "This is the law; a man who dies in a tent - anyone who comes into the tent and everything that is in the tent will become impure seven days."

The Commandment of the niddah waters which render the pure, impure and only purify someone impure from the impurity of a dead body: That we have been commanded about the laws of the niddah waters, meaning to say in the laws of the waters of sprinkling, which are 'living' waters mixed with the ashes of the heifer, which we sprinkle on the impure. And the expression, 'niddah,' is meaning to say, sprinkling, which is an expression of throwing, as in "and they threw (yadu) a stone at me" (Lamentations 3:53). And we were commanded with laws known from the Scripture: That we purify the impure, as it is stated (Numbers 19:19), "And the pure will sprinkle the impure, etc."; and render the pure impure [with] a severe impurity, as it is written (Numbers 19:21), "and the one who sprinkles the niddah waters, etc." And that which is stated about this commandment [to call it] the 'statute' (chukat) of the heifer, is [because] it is a lofty wonder - I cannot master it.

The Commandment of the niddah waters which render the pure, impure and only purify someone impure from the impurity of a dead body: That we have been commanded about the laws of the niddah waters, meaning to say in the laws of the waters of sprinkling, which are 'living' waters mixed with the ashes of the heifer, which we sprinkle on the impure. And the expression, 'niddah,' is meaning to say, sprinkling, which is an expression of throwing, as in "and they threw (yadu) a stone at me" (Lamentations 3:53). And we were commanded with laws known from the Scripture: That we purify the impure, as it is stated (Numbers 19:19), "And the pure will sprinkle the impure, etc."; and render the pure impure [with] a severe impurity, as it is written (Numbers 19:21), "and the one who sprinkles the niddah waters, etc." And that which is stated about this commandment [to call it] the 'statute' (chukat) of the heifer, is [because] it is a lofty wonder - I cannot master it.

And also from the content of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 30a), "To what extent is a man obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel said, '[Like], for example, Zevulun ben Dan.'" The understanding of [this is that there was] a man in their generation whose name was Zevulun ben Dan, whose father’s father taught him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, laws, and homiles (aggadot). And they challenged what they challenged about this in the Gemara, and the resolution was that the obligation is to teach him Scripture - which is Torah - like the father's father of Zevulun did, and even though the father's father of Zevulun ben Dan taught him more. And one who adds upon the obligation of the commandment, like the father's father of Zevulun ben Dan, brings a blessing upon himself. And one who was not taught by his fathers who are obligated in this - such as his father and his father's father - is obligated to teach himself when he is an adult and recognizes the thing, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:1), "and study them and do them." And if [both] the father and the son needed to study, and the father does not have [enough] in his hand that they can both study, he always [comes] before his son. But if his son is more understanding than he and his [son's] studies are more [effective], his son precedes him. And until when is every man obligated to study Torah? Until the day of his death, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:9), "and lest they be diverted from your heart, all of the days of your life" (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Torah Study 1:10). And the Sages emphasized the matter more by way of ethics and to teach people desire [for it] and said (Shabbat 83b) that even at the time of death, a man is obligated to study Torah, as it is stated (Numbers 19:14), "This is the law of the Torah, when a man dies in a tent." And everyone in Israel is obligated about the study of Torah (Yoma 35b) - whether poor or rich, whether healthy or one with afflictions. And they, may their memory be blessed, already said (Eruvin 54a) that all of the limbs are healed by involvement in Torah. And even a poor person that goes around to [other people's] doors, and even a married man with children - everyone - is obligated to set time for Torah [study] during the day and during the night, as it is stated (Joshua 1:8), "and you shall meditate about it day and night."