Halakhah su Numeri 19:20

The apparent incongruity in Rabad's position is explained by the late Rabbi Kook in his Mishpat Kohen, no. 96. Throughout the period in which the Temple stood, the Temple site was possessed of two distinct forms of sanctity: sanctity by virtue of the fact that it was the "encampment" of the Shekhinah, and a second sanctity associated with the "walls" of the Temple structure. Rabbi Bezalel Zolti, Torah She-be-'al Peh (5728), X, draws essentially the same distinction and asserts that historically these two different sanctifications occurred at two distinct times: the Temple structure was sanctified by King Solomon, whereas the site was sanctified as the "encampment" of the Shekhinah by King David many years before the Temple was actually built. Punishment of karet is prescribed for defilement of the Temple itself, i.e., the physical structure, as indicated in Numbers 19:20, "That person shall be cut off from the midst of the community for he has defiled the Temple of God." The second prohibition, carrying with it a lesser punishment, reads "And they shall not defile their encampment in the midst whereof I dwell" (Num. 5:3). The latter reference makes no mention of the sanctity of the "walls" but refers to the sanctity of the "encampment." Rabad's position, then, is that the sanctity of the "walls" lapsed with the destruction of the Temple, whereas the sanctity of the "encampment" continues and is in no way abrogated by the destruction of the Temple walls. Consequently, even according to Rabad, the prohibition "They shall not defile their encampment," forbidding a person who has become ritually impure to enter the Temple Mount, remains in force even in our day.

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."