Les Nombres 5:2 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim & Makkot

HALAKHAH: ⁵³The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah<sup>54</sup>In Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. <sup>55</sup>Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]⁵⁶Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion⁵⁷Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition.. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.⁵⁸The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps⁵⁹This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Num. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded..

But one never is liable for any positive commandment in the Torah⁶⁴Since the rules for purification sacrifices clearly say that they are for inadvertent violations of prohibitions. Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršeta 1(6).! Rebbi Mattaniah said, we only came to state matters similar to the matter⁶⁵The only positive commandments which can lead to the liability for a purification sacrifice are special obligations to take steps to avoid certain prohibitions. The only examples are impurity in the Temple and relations with a menstruating woman; cf. Note 70.. How is that? If he entered the Temple impure, he is liable⁶⁶There are many verses forbidding entry into the holy precinct to impure people, each one for a specific impurity. For impurity of the dead, the sufferer from skin disease, and the sufferer from gonorrhea Num. 5:2 (taking together Num.19:20, Lev. 13:46, 15:15); for the woman after childbirth Lev. 12:4. The general prohibition covering all impurities is Lev. 15:31 as noted in the next paragraph.. If he entered pure but became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable⁶⁷Babli Ševuot 14b. There and in Nazir3:5 (Note 68) it is stated that the person noticing his impurity must leave in less time than is needed to prostrate himself.. Similarly, if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable⁶⁸The Babli, Ševuot 18a, last line in the Wilna ed., objects to a time limit in this case while agreeing with the practice as explained in the next paragraph.. What is his shortcut? He shall cool down⁶⁹He must remain immobilized until his erection has disappeared..

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: They did not sanctify under the wing in Jerusalem³¹⁰The gates of the walls of Jerusalem were sanctified, to be used as place for the consumption of sancia, only within the closed doors.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav Samuel bar Rav Isaac: That the sufferers from skin disease³¹¹While the verse Num. 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain. Did they similarly not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount, that sufferers from gonorrhea and flux³¹¹While the verse Num. 5:2 says, they shall exile from the camp any sufferer from skin disease, any sufferer from gonorrhea, and any one defiled by a corpse, the rabbinic interpretation is that the sufferers from skin disease have to be exiled from any walled city, the sufferer from gonorrhea only from the Temple Mount, and the person impure by the impurity of corpses only from the Temple district proper. Babli 67a, Sifry Num. 1. might find shelter in summer from the sun and in the rainy season from rain? The sufferer from skin disease has no place to find shelter; the sufferer from gonorrhea finds shelter in all of Jerusalem. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Since we see that the rabbis take off their sandals under the wing of the Temple Mount³¹²Since it is forbidden to walk with shoes on the Temple Mount proper; Mishnah Berakhot 9:8., this implies that they did not sanctify under the wing of the Temple Mount. Rav asked the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: What is the status of roofs in Jerusalem? He told him, since one uses as proverb: the Pesaḥ in an olive-sized bit and Hallel breaks the roof,³¹³So many people have subscribed to one Pesaḥ that each only got one olive-sized piece, and the noise of the Hallel which they were singing while eating on the roof damaged the roof. This proves that the Pesaḥ was eaten on the roof, and therefore the roofs of the houses of Jerusalem were sanctified. this implies that the roofs of Jerusalem are sanctified. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Miasha, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: The roofs of Jerusalem are profane. But did we not state, “From the wing and inside it is like inside; from the wing and outside it is like outside³¹⁴Since the roofs are of houses inside the walls, the blanket statement that all inside is sanctified also includes the roofs.”? Explain it that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard³¹⁵Roofs on street level of houses dug out from the earth, not built on it.. But did we not state, “windows and the thickness of the wall are like inside³¹⁶The “thickness of the wall” cannot refer to the material since this is inaccessible; it cannot refer to the windows which are mentioned separately. Therefore it must refer to the roofs.”? Explain it again that the Mishnah speaks about a roof surrounded by buildings forming a courtyard. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: glacis and wall mourned³¹⁷Thr. 2:8. Babli 86a., the wall and the ante-wall. If they sanctified the thickness of the wall, not so much more the window? Rebbi Aḥa said, it is necessary for the window on top of the wing. Even though you are saying that they did not sanctify under the wing of Jerusalem, they sanctified the window over the wing.