Les Nombres 19:20 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot & Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Rebbi Joḥanan said: In any case of doubt in the public domain, the doubt has to be resolved as pure, but one does not allow to act¹⁵It is stated in Mishnah Ṭahorot4:11 (and made explicit there in Chapters 5–6) that any doubt which arises in the public domain whether something there is impure can be disregarded. Rebbi Joḥanan’s new statement is that even though this is accepted practice, one does not teach this and if a person comes to ask about it, one does not say that the thing is pure.. But did we not state¹⁶Parah11:2. While in general the rules of purity for the water in which ashes of the Red Cow are to be dissolved to purify from the impurity of the dead are very strict, if for heave something is declared pure, such as a doubt of impurity arising in the public domain, it also must be declared pure for the sprinkling water. But if judgment is suspended, i. e., if the heave may not be eaten by a Cohen for perhaps it is impure (when its consumption would be a deadly sin), but it cannot be burned for perhaps it is pure and then the destruction of sancta would be sinful, the water is considered impure and must be poured out on the ground to avoid further pollution.
The expression חַטָּאת biblically refers to the Red Cow (Num.19:2), not to the water which is called מֵי נִדָּה “throwing water”.(Num. 19:20–21).: “Any case of doubt which was declared pure for heave is pure for sprinkling water, and in any case where it remains unresolved for heave the sprinkling water is poured out.” There is nothing unresolved for the sprinkling water; either it is genuinely pure or genuinely impure. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the Mishnah deals with a situation not caused by a sacrifice; what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a situation caused by a sacrifice<sup>17</sup>Since the Mishnah in Parah instructs the carrier of purifying water to disregard any doubt arising in the public domain, the instruction of R. Joḥanan that one does not allow anybody to act on this rule cannot be maintained. The answer is that R. Joḥanan stated his rule only for sancta of the Sanctuary; for all sancta not connected with the Sanctuary it is a publicly stated rule that a doubt in the public domain has to be disregarded.. Everybody agrees that if the person transgresses and acted, it is pure<sup>18</sup>Only if somebody acted as if it was pure and after the fact comes to ask a rabbinic authority, one has to declare the matter as pure even in the Sanctuary. “Everybody” includes R. Aqiba who in certain cases declares such a doubt as causing impurity (Ṭahorot5:1).. The arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted. There<sup>19</sup>Later in this paragraph, when he declares that a nazir, who is forbidden to become impure by the impurity of the dead, must treat a certain case of doubt of impurity as a case of certain impurity., he says, if he transgresses and acted, it is impure. But here he said, if he transgresses and acted, it is pure. There in a private domain, here in the public domain<sup>20</sup>And everybody agrees that in a private domain any doubt of impurity has to be treated as certainty of impurity.. But you could even say, there and here in the public domain<sup>21</sup>Following R. Ze`ira.. The arguments of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish are inverted, the arguments of Rebbi Joḥanan are inverted, since they disagreed: A nazir became impure by a grave in the abyss²²A corpse, visibly the victim of an accident not seen by witnesses and found buried in straw or pebbles or other loose material. One may assume that the corpse was buried by the accident, rather than humans. Nazir9:2 Notes 59ff., Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the nazir does not shave, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, the nazir has to shave. That is since Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of awareness is awareness¹⁰Since we accept the principle of the excluded middle (i.e., a statement is either true or false) a proof that the person could not have been pure both times is proof that he was impure (at least) once. For awareness of impurity no awareness of the exact time of impurity is needed. The Babli (19b) points out that this argument is needed only for variable reparation sacrifices since for purification sacrifices no prior knowledge is required., even if the first was because of a crawling animal and the second by a corpse²³While everybody agrees that the nazir is impure if it should become clear that he passed by after the accident and therefore violated the terms of his vow, in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s view the verse Num. 6:9 clearly requires that the nazir be aware of his impurity at the moment it happens to be required to shave and start the ceremony described there. This makes the rules of nazir parallel to the rules of the variable sacrifice which also presuppose prior knowledge (Horaiot3:3). But for R. Joḥanan, any awareness of any impurity, even a minor one which can be remedied by simple immersion in water, is counted as full awareness of impurity.. ²⁴These two sentences have no place here; they are copied from Horaiot3:3, Notes 76,77. The first before he converted and the second after he converted. The first before he grew two pubic hairs, the second after he grew them.

We have stated⁹¹Mishnah Niddah 7:1.: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked⁹²The Babli, Niddah 56a, explains soaking 24 hours in lukewarm water. will not return to its former status is pure⁹³In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure⁹⁴Babli, Niddah 56a., so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure⁹⁵Babli, Bekhorot 23b. The argument is based on Deut. 14:21 which requires the animal carcass to be given to the non-Jewish resident or sold to the stranger. It is inferred that once a carcass can no longer be given away or sold, it has lost its legal standing as carcass. This corresponds to the rule, expounded at length in Tractate Kelim, that impure objects become pure once they have lost any commercial value., would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter⁹³In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay⁹⁶By the argument of Note 95, a decaying animal carcass has no commercial value and, therefore, is pure. “No decay” means “no impurity classified under the heading of ‘decay’ ”., so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh⁹⁷The argument of the colleagues is well taken; R. Yose accepts the impurity of human decay only for decaying bone material, not for decayed flesh., there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy⁹⁸Prov. 14:30..” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave⁹⁹Num. 19:20. This is a new statement. Touching a grave induces the impurity of the dead irrespective of the age of the grave and the person buried while in the opinion of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai only a Jewish corpse induces the impurity of a “tent” (Babli Yebamot 61a.) The Babli concurs (loc. cit.). R. Yannai’s statement is attributed in the Babli, 54a, to his student R. Simeon ben Laqish.”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he¹⁰⁰As confirmed by a fragment of baraita, Bar Qappara holds that any root may represent all 6 permutations of its letters. This cannot be classified as a derivation; it is a hint.) transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal⁶²Num. 19:13., another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal⁶³Num. 19:20. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside⁶⁴The two verses appear in the same Chapter. There must be a reason for the use of two synonyms. It is a hint that the rules are different for one who enters while impure and one who becomes impure inside. (There is another opinion, Sifry Num.126, that מִשְׁכָּן describes the movable Tabernacle and מִקְדָּשׁ the permanent Temple. The Babli 16b brings both opinions in the name of R. Eleazar.). If he became impure (inside)⁶⁵It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside)⁶⁵It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside⁶⁶Do we say that if he became impure inside and moved his head and body further inside instead of towards the outside that he is guilty on two counts?? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself⁶⁷The Mishnah makes it clear that only the time elapsed inside the sacred precinct determines his liability, not the direction of his motion.. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last⁶⁸The moment he became impure or the moment he stayed longer than necessary.? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last⁶⁹This essentially is a repetition of the previous argument: Not the fact that he became impure determines his guilt but the time he tarried inside. The argument is recast as introduction to the next paragraph..