תלמוד על במדבר 19:19

“¹¹⁴Toesephta Demay 1:12–14 {commentary in braces}: “12. A storage facility into which Jews and Gentiles contribute; if the majority are Gentile it is certain, if the majority are Jewish, it is demay; these are the words of R. Meïr {who holds that produce of the Holy Land is subject to heave and tithes even if grown by a Gentile.} But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew {since produce of the Holy Land is not subject to heave and tithes if grown by a Gentile.} 13. Rebbi Yose said, when are these words said, for a private storage facility, but at a government storage facility {for storing taxes paid in kind} one follows the majority. They said to him, you taught us about the storage facility of Jabneh, which is inside the walls, that it is demay, and most of the contributors are Samaritans {who are subject to tithes but certainly will not tithe what they personally do not use}; but a storage facility outside the Land, e. g., that of Ragab {a place in Jordan} is obligated only according to percentages {of the supply coming from the Land.} 13. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my life I read this verse (Num. 19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ and I did not understand it until the storage at Jabneh; I learned from the storage facility at Jabneh that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai¹¹⁵A Tanna of the Fourth generation, son-in-law of R. Aqiba. His father-in-law considers Samaritans as true converts (Babli Qiddušin 75b) but thinks one cannot intermarry with them because of their deviating interpretation of some incest prohibitions. said, all my life I read this verse (Num.19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ that one pure person sprinkles on one impure person, until I learned it from the storage facility at Jabneh. This means that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.¹¹⁶Since one rabbinic Jew makes demay in the presence of many Samaritans.
{In the Babli, Nazir 61b, the verse is taken to mean that only a person who may become impure by Biblical standards, i. e., a Jew, can sprinkle the water with the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse another Jew from the impurity of the dead. In Sifry,Num.129, R. Aqiba infers that the water was purifying only if a pure person sprinkles on an impure one but sprinkling on a pure person makes him impure. This is accepted by the Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:2 (fol. 38d); a Babli source (Yoma 14a) quotes and follows a dissenting opinion of the Sages. Sifry zuta,Ḥuqqat 19, notes that only a pure person becomes impure; a person impure but not through a corpse is not influenced by being sprinkled. Since Sifry zuta in general follows R. Ismael, this supports the position of the Yerushalmi that R. Aqiba’s statement is accepted by everybody.}”

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses⁹³Num. 19:18.. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written⁹⁴Num. 19:19., the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. ⁹⁵From here on this paragraph and the next are from Šabbat2, Notes 63–71. This paragraph is connected with the Mishnah here since it states only that immersion of males has to be during daytime. The next paragraph has no connection, it simply is copied from Šabbat. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night⁹⁶Babli Šabbat121a, Pesaḥim90b, Yoma6a, 87a.. A woman after her period whose time has passed⁹⁷After the first evening she could have immersed herself after her period; cf. Niddah4:1 Note 3. Babli Niddah67b. immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre⁹⁸As practice to be followed., a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There⁹⁹In Babylonia, where the statement was attributed to R. Joḥanan; Niddah67b. There, the reason is given “because of the discipline of her daughter”, that she should learn the rules clearly. they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis¹⁰⁰The household of R. Jehudah Nesia. The deviation of Galilean from Babylonian practice is confirmed. immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.¹⁰⁹Babli 9a; Tosephta 1:10. The Babli 9b points out that there are three levels of variable sacrifices and the argument of Note 84 excludes only the sacrifice of the very poor for the High Priest. In R. Simeon’s opinion, the High Priest is still liable at least for a poor man’s sacrifice for disregarding a summons to testify.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate¹¹⁰Lev. 21:12. The argument seems to be: If the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary, he has no occasion to desecrate it. Therefore the verse is read as: and the Sanctuary he shall not leave; he will not desecrate. The implication would be that the High Priest not only is exempt from bringing a sacrifice (which is a dubious distinction since it denies him a means of atonement) but his infraction of the Sanctuary’s purity does not need atonement.. Rebbi Ashian¹¹¹A student of R. Jonah’s. The reading of B, R. Joshia, referring to an Amora preceding R. Jonah by two generations, is impossible., Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate¹¹²Lev. 21:13. The next verse gives the reason for the prohibition: So he may not desecrate his descendants. Since the child of a Cohen from a woman forbidden to him by the special rules of the priesthood is desecrated, R. Johanan’s interpretation of v. 12 is shown to be unacceptable.? What about it? ¹¹³A slightly different version of the following is in the Babli, 9b. Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community¹¹⁴Num. 19:19. The entire Chapter deals with the preservation of the purity of the Sanctuary (Sifry Num. 129).. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community¹¹⁵By his office he is excluded from being one of the community. His sacrifice is either a bull or nothing; the sacrifice of a member of the community is the variable offering (a female sheep or goat, or two pigeons, or flour.). They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community¹¹⁶It always is a goat.? It is equal on the day of Atonement¹¹⁷On that day, the High Priest brings three sacrifices (Lev. 16) cf. Note 16. The first one for himself and his family; the second for his fellow priests and their families, and the third a double offering for the people. There the king (unless he is a usurping High Priest and king) is included with the people.. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year¹¹⁸The lesser priests are subject to the rules of the variable value sacrifice.. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside¹¹⁹On the Day of Atonement, only the blood of the first and third sacrifices are brought inside the Temple to purify the incense altar; the blood of the second sacrifice, the atonement of the priests, is sprinkled on the large outside alter like any other sacrifice. Similarly, the blood of the prince’s purification sacrifice is treated like that of a commoner, to be sprinkled on the outside altar..