וְאִם־בְּפֶ֥תַע בְּלֹא־אֵיבָ֖ה הֲדָפ֑וֹ אוֹ־הִשְׁלִ֥יךְ עָלָ֛יו כָּל־כְּלִ֖י בְּלֹ֥א צְדִיָּֽה׃
Mais s’il l’a heurté fortuitement, sans hostilité, ou s’il a jeté quelque objet sur lui sans dessein de l’atteindre;
Bamidbar Rabbah
If a corpse shall die near him with unexpected suddenness, and make impure his consecrated head, he shall shave his head on the day of his purification, on the seventh day he shall shave it” (Numbers 6:9).
“If a corpse shall die near him” – this is in a case where the impurity is clear; to the exclusion of a case of uncertainty, this is the impurity of the depths.117When the nazir became impure from a concealed or buried corpse which nobody was aware of at the time the nazir came in contact with it. Which is the impurity of the depths? It is any case where there is no one, even at the ends of the earth, who can identify it [the corpse]. If there were one at the ends of the earth who could identify it, this is not the impurity of the depths. If it was concealed in hay or pebbles, this is the impurity of the depths. If it was in water, darkness, or boulder crevices, this is not the impurity of the depths. They said impurity of the depths only regarding a corpse alone.
“With unexpected suddenness [befeta pitom],” Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Befeta, this is unwitting, as it says: “With suddenness [befeta], without enmity, he pushed him” (Numbers 35:22).118This is one of the examples of an unwitting murderer. Pitom, this is by force of circumstance, as it says: “The Lord said pitom to Moses, [Aaron and Miriam]” (Numbers 12:4). The Rabbis say: Pitom is intentional, as it says: “But simpletons [uftayim] continued and were punished” (Proverbs 22:3). Alternatively, pitom, this is unwitting, as it is written: “A peti will believe anything” (Proverbs 14:15). If pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance and unwitting, why did the verse need to write befeta to include the unwitting?119The word pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance, or unwitting, so why did the verse also use the word befeta? Had befeta not been written, I would have said that one brings an offering for his impurity where he was impure unwittingly, just as it is throughout the entire Torah, but if it was by force of circumstance or intentional, I would say that he is not. The All Merciful wrote peta, which is unwitting, to reveal regarding pitom, that it is by force of circumstance or intentional, and nevertheless, he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.
“And make impure his consecrated head, [he shall shave his head]” – regarding one who was ritually pure and became impure, he is obligated in the removal of hair and the bringing of an offering, and to exempt a nazirite located at a grave.120Who at the time of the vow was impure because he was in a graveyard. “He shall shave his head” – he shaves his head but he does not shave all his hair.
“On the day of his purification,” it is on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh. Do you say: On the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, or on the eighth? The verse states: “On the seventh day he shall shave it.” If on the seventh, even though he did not sprinkle? The verse states: “On the day of his purification” – on the day of his sprinkling. “On the seventh day” – I have only the seventh, from where do I derive the eighth, ninth, and tenth?121That if he did not shave on the seventh day, he can shave at a later date. The verse states: “He shall shave it.” I have only during the day, from where do I derive at night? The verse states: “He shall shave it.” I have only shaving in impurity, from where do I derive shaving in purity?122That he can shave at night also when he shaves in purity. The verse states: "He shall shave it." How so? He would sprinkle on the third and the seventh, shave on the seventh, and bring his offerings on the eighth. If he shaved on the eighth, he brings his offering on that same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
“If a corpse shall die near him” – this is in a case where the impurity is clear; to the exclusion of a case of uncertainty, this is the impurity of the depths.117When the nazir became impure from a concealed or buried corpse which nobody was aware of at the time the nazir came in contact with it. Which is the impurity of the depths? It is any case where there is no one, even at the ends of the earth, who can identify it [the corpse]. If there were one at the ends of the earth who could identify it, this is not the impurity of the depths. If it was concealed in hay or pebbles, this is the impurity of the depths. If it was in water, darkness, or boulder crevices, this is not the impurity of the depths. They said impurity of the depths only regarding a corpse alone.
“With unexpected suddenness [befeta pitom],” Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Befeta, this is unwitting, as it says: “With suddenness [befeta], without enmity, he pushed him” (Numbers 35:22).118This is one of the examples of an unwitting murderer. Pitom, this is by force of circumstance, as it says: “The Lord said pitom to Moses, [Aaron and Miriam]” (Numbers 12:4). The Rabbis say: Pitom is intentional, as it says: “But simpletons [uftayim] continued and were punished” (Proverbs 22:3). Alternatively, pitom, this is unwitting, as it is written: “A peti will believe anything” (Proverbs 14:15). If pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance and unwitting, why did the verse need to write befeta to include the unwitting?119The word pitom can mean intentional, by force of circumstance, or unwitting, so why did the verse also use the word befeta? Had befeta not been written, I would have said that one brings an offering for his impurity where he was impure unwittingly, just as it is throughout the entire Torah, but if it was by force of circumstance or intentional, I would say that he is not. The All Merciful wrote peta, which is unwitting, to reveal regarding pitom, that it is by force of circumstance or intentional, and nevertheless, he is obligated to bring an offering for his impurity.
“And make impure his consecrated head, [he shall shave his head]” – regarding one who was ritually pure and became impure, he is obligated in the removal of hair and the bringing of an offering, and to exempt a nazirite located at a grave.120Who at the time of the vow was impure because he was in a graveyard. “He shall shave his head” – he shaves his head but he does not shave all his hair.
“On the day of his purification,” it is on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh. Do you say: On the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, or on the eighth? The verse states: “On the seventh day he shall shave it.” If on the seventh, even though he did not sprinkle? The verse states: “On the day of his purification” – on the day of his sprinkling. “On the seventh day” – I have only the seventh, from where do I derive the eighth, ninth, and tenth?121That if he did not shave on the seventh day, he can shave at a later date. The verse states: “He shall shave it.” I have only during the day, from where do I derive at night? The verse states: “He shall shave it.” I have only shaving in impurity, from where do I derive shaving in purity?122That he can shave at night also when he shaves in purity. The verse states: "He shall shave it." How so? He would sprinkle on the third and the seventh, shave on the seventh, and bring his offerings on the eighth. If he shaved on the eighth, he brings his offering on that same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
Vayikra Rabbah
Another matter, “if you sell a sale item” – Rabbi Ḥiyya son of Rabbi Ada of Yafo said: “If you sell” – you are destined to be sold to the nations of the world,16He reads the expression “If you sell [timkeru]” as though it were vocalized differently, giving a meaning of “when you are sold [timakhru].” but you should be partners with your Creator, just as Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya were, who said to Nebuchadnezzar: “We have no need to reply to you in this matter…Behold our God, whom we worship…He is able to save us…Behold, if not, let it be known to you, king, [that we will not worship your gods, and we will not prostrate ourselves to the golden image that you have erected]” (Daniel 3:16–18). “Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them: Hatzeda, Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego, [you do not worship my gods, and you do not prostrate yourselves to the golden image that I have erected?]” (Daniel 3:14). What is hatzeda? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Truth.17As in Numbers 35:22, tzediya, which means intent or truth. Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: Emptiness [tzadu]. What, have you come to render my idol worship emptiness? The translation of “emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2) is tzadeya.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said two [statements], Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said two, Shmuel bar Naḥman said two, and the Rabbis said one. Rabbi Yoḥanan said two [statements]: He said to them:18Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya. ‘Does not the source of idol worship come from you? Is it not written: “And their idols from Jerusalem and Samaria” (Isaiah 10:10), and you have come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said another: He said to them: ‘When you were in your land you would send to us and acquire nails, hair, and bones of idol worship in order to carve them, to realize what is written: “Idols of the Chaldeans engraved with vermilion” (Ezekiel 23:14), and you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’
Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said two [statements]: [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘When you were in your land, you would divide into sects for idol worship, just as it says: “You made your beauty an abomination and spread your legs for every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25), and you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said another. He said to them: ‘When you were in your land, you would gather in multitudes for idol worship.’ That is what is written: “The sound of a peaceful multitude was within it” (Ezekiel 23:42). “Muva’im” (Ezekiel 23:42) – from Canossa, “Sava’im” (Ezekiel 23:42) – exceedingly inebriated. “They put bracelets on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:42), Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Prostitutes, just as it says: “I said of one who is labala by adulteries” (Ezekiel 23:43). What is labala? Aquila translated: A worn-out prostitute. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Labala is nothing other than an expression of idol worship, just as it says: “I will reckon with Bel19This is the name of an idol. in Babylon” (Jeremiah 51:44). ‘And you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said two [statements]: [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Your idol worship was of silver and gold, just as it says: “Their silver and their gold they made into idols for themselves” (Hosea 8:4), but my idol worship is pure gold in its entirety.’ That is what is written: “King Nebuchadnezzar made an image [of gold]” (Daniel 3:1). ‘And you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said another. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Did Moses not write for you in the Torah: “You will serve gods [elohim] there, the handiwork of man”?’ (Deuteronomy 4:28). They said: ‘My lord the king, it is not to prostrate ourselves, but rather, to pay tribute with land taxes, produce taxes, animal taxes, and head taxes,’ as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: There they call kings elohim.20Nebuchadnezzar argued that they should serve his gods, in accordance with the verse in Deuteronomy. They responded that the verse means they will serve the kings of the lands where they are exiled, as the term elohim can refer to kings. “There” may refer to the land of Israel, or to Rome, which ruled the land of Israel at the time of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, or to Babylon.
The Rabbis said one. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Did Jeremiah not write for you: “It will be the nation and the kingdom that will not serve Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon…with the sword and with famine and with pestilence I will reckon with that nation]”?’ (Jeremiah 27:8). He said to them: ‘Either you fulfill the beginning of this verse, or I will fulfill its end.’ Immediately, “Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego spoke, saying to King Nebuchadnezzar, [we have no need to reply to you in this matter]” (Daniel 3:16). If “king,” why “Nebuchadnezzar,” if “Nebuchadnezzar,” why “king”? Rather, regarding tribute with land taxes, produce taxes, animal taxes, and head taxes, you are king over us, but for this matter that you are saying to us, you are Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar is your name. You and a dog are equivalent for us. Nebuchadnezzar barks [navaḥ] like a dog, inflates like a leather jug [kad], and chirps [natzar] like a cricket.
Immediately, he barked like a dog, inflated like a leather jug, and chirped like a cricket, as it is stated: “I keep the king's command [and the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). Rabbi Levi said: I will keep the command of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, the mouth that said to us at Sinai: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2).21The implication is thus: I will keep the king’s command, but only if it does not contradict “the word of an oath to God,” i.e. any of God’s commandments. “And the word of an oath to God,” a reference to: “God spoke all these matters” (Exodus 20:1). “An oath to God,” a reference to: “You shall not take [the name of the Lord…in vain]” (Exodus 20:7), because in this world Israel is enslaved to the nations of the world, and in the future, what is written? “Kings will be your caregivers, and their princesses, your wet nurses” (Isaiah 49:23). For in this world the nations of the world torment Israel, but in the future, the Holy One blessed be He says: “I am destined to feed them from their own flesh and make them inebriated from their own blood, as from sweet wine” (Isaiah 49:26).22God will impose such a harsh famine on the wicked members of the nations of the world that they will eat their own flesh.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said two [statements], Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said two, Shmuel bar Naḥman said two, and the Rabbis said one. Rabbi Yoḥanan said two [statements]: He said to them:18Nebuchadnezzar said to Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya. ‘Does not the source of idol worship come from you? Is it not written: “And their idols from Jerusalem and Samaria” (Isaiah 10:10), and you have come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Yoḥanan said another: He said to them: ‘When you were in your land you would send to us and acquire nails, hair, and bones of idol worship in order to carve them, to realize what is written: “Idols of the Chaldeans engraved with vermilion” (Ezekiel 23:14), and you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’
Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said two [statements]: [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘When you were in your land, you would divide into sects for idol worship, just as it says: “You made your beauty an abomination and spread your legs for every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25), and you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said another. He said to them: ‘When you were in your land, you would gather in multitudes for idol worship.’ That is what is written: “The sound of a peaceful multitude was within it” (Ezekiel 23:42). “Muva’im” (Ezekiel 23:42) – from Canossa, “Sava’im” (Ezekiel 23:42) – exceedingly inebriated. “They put bracelets on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:42), Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Prostitutes, just as it says: “I said of one who is labala by adulteries” (Ezekiel 23:43). What is labala? Aquila translated: A worn-out prostitute. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Labala is nothing other than an expression of idol worship, just as it says: “I will reckon with Bel19This is the name of an idol. in Babylon” (Jeremiah 51:44). ‘And you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said two [statements]: [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Your idol worship was of silver and gold, just as it says: “Their silver and their gold they made into idols for themselves” (Hosea 8:4), but my idol worship is pure gold in its entirety.’ That is what is written: “King Nebuchadnezzar made an image [of gold]” (Daniel 3:1). ‘And you come here to render my idol worship emptiness?’ Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said another. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Did Moses not write for you in the Torah: “You will serve gods [elohim] there, the handiwork of man”?’ (Deuteronomy 4:28). They said: ‘My lord the king, it is not to prostrate ourselves, but rather, to pay tribute with land taxes, produce taxes, animal taxes, and head taxes,’ as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: There they call kings elohim.20Nebuchadnezzar argued that they should serve his gods, in accordance with the verse in Deuteronomy. They responded that the verse means they will serve the kings of the lands where they are exiled, as the term elohim can refer to kings. “There” may refer to the land of Israel, or to Rome, which ruled the land of Israel at the time of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman, or to Babylon.
The Rabbis said one. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to them: ‘Did Jeremiah not write for you: “It will be the nation and the kingdom that will not serve Nebuchadnezzar [king of Babylon…with the sword and with famine and with pestilence I will reckon with that nation]”?’ (Jeremiah 27:8). He said to them: ‘Either you fulfill the beginning of this verse, or I will fulfill its end.’ Immediately, “Shadrakh, Meshakh, and Aved Nego spoke, saying to King Nebuchadnezzar, [we have no need to reply to you in this matter]” (Daniel 3:16). If “king,” why “Nebuchadnezzar,” if “Nebuchadnezzar,” why “king”? Rather, regarding tribute with land taxes, produce taxes, animal taxes, and head taxes, you are king over us, but for this matter that you are saying to us, you are Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar is your name. You and a dog are equivalent for us. Nebuchadnezzar barks [navaḥ] like a dog, inflates like a leather jug [kad], and chirps [natzar] like a cricket.
Immediately, he barked like a dog, inflated like a leather jug, and chirped like a cricket, as it is stated: “I keep the king's command [and the word of an oath to God]” (Ecclesiastes 8:2). Rabbi Levi said: I will keep the command of the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, the mouth that said to us at Sinai: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2).21The implication is thus: I will keep the king’s command, but only if it does not contradict “the word of an oath to God,” i.e. any of God’s commandments. “And the word of an oath to God,” a reference to: “God spoke all these matters” (Exodus 20:1). “An oath to God,” a reference to: “You shall not take [the name of the Lord…in vain]” (Exodus 20:7), because in this world Israel is enslaved to the nations of the world, and in the future, what is written? “Kings will be your caregivers, and their princesses, your wet nurses” (Isaiah 49:23). For in this world the nations of the world torment Israel, but in the future, the Holy One blessed be He says: “I am destined to feed them from their own flesh and make them inebriated from their own blood, as from sweet wine” (Isaiah 49:26).22God will impose such a harsh famine on the wicked members of the nations of the world that they will eat their own flesh.
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 35:22) "And if of a sudden, without hatred, he thrust him": to exclude (his killing) unwittingly. "or he cast upon him some instrument, but not in prey": without "hunting" or intent to kill. (22) "Or with any stone, whereby one can die," "without seeing": to include (for exile) a blind man and one who throws (a stone) at night. R. Yehudah says: "without seeing": to exclude a blind man. "and he not be his foe": Issi b. Akiva says: We find his stringency to be his lenity, and his lenity, his stringency, viz.: You cannot make him liable for the death penalty — Perhaps he killed him unwittingly. And you cannot make him liable for exile — Perhaps he killed him wittingly. "and he not be his foe" (juxtaposed with [24] "Then the congregation shall judge"): to exclude haters from sitting in judgment. This tells me of haters. Whence do we derive the same for kin? From (24) "between the slayer and the avenger" (with no other "relationship" intervening). Whence do I derive the same for witnesses? It follows, viz.: The Torah states: Kill through (the agency of) judges, kill through witnesses. Just as judges who are (their) haters or kin are unfit (to judge in their case), so, witnesses (who are haters or kin). Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If judges — who do not decide (the facts of the case) — haters and kin are unfit to serve (as judges), then witnesses — who decide (the facts of the case) — how much more so are haters and kin unfit to serve (as witnesses)! This tells me only of (the instance of a murderer). Whence do I derive (the same for) all other instances of the death penalty? From [the superfluous] (Ibid.) "according to these judgments." This tells me only of Israelites. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? From (Vayikra 24:22) "for proselytes and native-born (Israelites) alike." This tells me only of capital cases. Whence do I derive (the same for) monetary cases? From (Ibid.) "One (standard of) judgment shall there be for you," — But perhaps just as capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three, so, monetary cases? It is, therefore, written (here) "according to these (capital) judgments." These are (adjudicated) by twenty-three, and not monetary judgments, of which it is written (Shemot 22:8) "Until elohim (counting three judges) shall come the dispute of both." And whence is it derived that capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three? From (Bamidbar 35:24) "And the congregation (ten) shall judge" (25) And the congregation (ten) shall rescue" — twenty all together. And whence is it derived that three are added? From (Shemot 23:2) "Do not be after the many to do evil," I understand that I should be with them to do good. If so, what is the intent of (Ibid.) "After the many (i.e., the majority to incline" (judgment)? Let your judgment for good (i.e., acquittal) not be like your judgment for evil (i.e., incrimination). I still would not know how many, (but the Torah states: Kill by witnesses; kill by the inclination of the judges. Just as witnesses are two, so, the inclination of the judges (i.e., acquittal, is with a majority of one, and incrimination by a majority of two); and since the verdict of beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, three most be added to them (the twenty). The expounders of metaphor stated: The three "eduyoth" ("congregants") written in this section (one in [24] and two in [27]) signal that capital cases are adjudicated by thirty.