תלמוד על במדבר 9:10

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse⁵Num. 9:10., I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]⁶Babli 93a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them⁷This is the third hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael. Sifry Num. 69, Tosephta 8:2 (in the name of R. Aqiba); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 9:10. is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally⁸Num. 9:13: But the man who was pure.
This contradicts the position of R. Aqiba in the Tosephta, that both those impure by a corpse and those on a far trip are prevented from making the First Pesaḥ and therefore the third hermeneutical principle excludes the one who intentionally omitted the First even though he was pure and not far away. Cf. Babli 93a/b.. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.⁹Tosephta 8:1.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open⁵⁹This and the following paragraphs are copied from Pesaḥim 7:7. In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. The addition “for you” seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 81b.
What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9: “If a person dies suddenly on him”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open:.

⁶⁰While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶²About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity⁶³A single person impure on the 14^th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14^th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14^th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss⁶⁴If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”
The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.
The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹But if the impure nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case⁷⁰Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating⁷¹The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷²The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other⁷⁵Babli Pesaḥim 80b..

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).