민수기 31:20의 미드라쉬

2) And thus is it written in respect to dead-body (tumah, Bamidbar 31:20): "and every work of goats." I might think (to include) ropes and cords (as acquiring tumah). (But) it follows (by reason that they should not be included), viz.: A dead body confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated.

3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written "a garment … skin" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — "a garment … skin" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on "every work of goats," so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats.

7) R. Akiva says: "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei": ("what") to include a vessel of bone. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If wood, whose "father" (the tree) is clean, the vessels made of it acquire tumah, then bone, whose "father" (flesh) is tamei, how much more so should the vessels made of it acquire tumah! — No, this may be true of wood, which is instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house. Would you say the same for bone, which is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house? Since it is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house, then the vessels made of it should not acquire tumah. It is, therefore, written "And what touches their carcass shall be tamei," to include vessels made of bone. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Broka says: (This verse is not needed for this inclusion.) It is already written (Bamidbar 31:20) "and all work of goats," to include (as acquiring tumah) everything that is made from goats, even from their horns (i.e., bones!) and from their hooves. Whence do I derive the same for other beasts and animals? From "and all work." If so, why is "goats," (specifically,) written? To exclude (vessels made from the bones of) birds.

(Bamidbar 19:14) "This is the Torah: A man if he die in a tent — all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei seven days." Scripture hereby comes to teach us a new tumah, that a dead man effects tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we derive that (the same obtains if he died) outside the tent (and were brought into it)? From "This is the Torah" (i.e., there is one law for both.) These are the words of Issi b. Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This derivation) is not needed. If when he had not been tamei (before), he effects tent-uncleanliness, how much more so, when he had been tamei (before, i.e., when he died outside the tent.) Whence do we derive that all things which "tent" are considered a tent (for purposes of tent-uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen tent)? R. Yitzchak said: If vis-à-vis a leper, the "lighter" (form of tumah), all things that "tent" (and not only flax) are considered tents, then vis-à-vis a dead man, the "graver" (form of tumah), how much more so should all things that "tent" be considered tents. "all that enter the tent": partially. "and all that is in the tent": entirely. Why need this be said? If one that enters partially is tamei, how much more so one who is in it entirely. R. Achi phrases it otherwise, viz.: If one who enters the tent is tamei, how much more so one who is already in it! What, then, is the intent of "all that is in the tent"? To render the floor of the house until the depths like the house itself (i.e., all that is in that space is tamei.) Everyone who enters the tent from its entrance becomes tamei, but it does not impart tumah from its sides if they are open (i.e., if a man or vessels touch the tent from the outside when it is open, they do not become tamei for seven days.) From here you can reason a fortiori to a grave, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, (being soil per se,) how much more so does it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open. — But perhaps the reverse is the case, viz.: If a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, imparts tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! It is, therefore, written "all that enter the tent" — It is only through its entrance that it imparts tumah, but not from all of its sides when it is open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed (the reasoning). The transposition has been nullified and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! — But (in that case) it should not (even) impart "evening tumah" (viz. Ibid. 22) — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that it does impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at a third remove from a dead body (as in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more so, one (as in our case) who is at a second remove! "and all that is in the tent shall be tamei": From this I understand that even straw and twigs and pieces of wood and stones are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels." — But I still would understand to be included vessels of ordure and vessels of earth and vessels of soil. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) "And every garment, and every vessel of skin, and every work of goats and every vessel of wood shall you cleanse." We learn, then, of four (types of) vessels (that are affected. Whence do we derive (the same for) metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) "But the silver and the gold, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels and of metal vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) earthen vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) "And every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, etc." We learn, then, of four types of vessels, of metal vessels, and of earthen vessels. — But perhaps the intent is that these (those mentioned in 30:20) and those mentioned here (19:18 "and upon all the vessels") are subject to cleansing, and the others (straw and twigs) are subject to tumah in a tent, (but not to cleansing.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) "he shall be tamei for seven days. (12) He shall be cleansed with it." Whatever is subject to cleansing is subject to tumah; whatever is not subject to cleansing is not subject to tumah. (Ibid. 15) "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is tamei." Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. — But perhaps it speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,) for you reason as follows: Four vessels are mentioned vis-à-vis a sheretz (a creeping thing, viz. Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of) vessel was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation (re tumah). And four vessels are mentioned in respect to a dead body, and one was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation. Just as there, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here) speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is, therefore, written "an open vessel" — a vessel that is subject to tumah at (the atmosphere of) its opening (and not at its outer surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is unclean" — forever, there being no cleansing for its tumah. And what is the intent of "open"? Any amount. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: From "there is no tight covering upon it," I would understand upon all of it. It is, therefore, written "upon" — upon its opening and not upon all of it. "tight covering" ("tzamid pathil") "tzamid": This is the stopper (plugging the inside). "pathil": This is the lid. And though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3) "And Israel adhered ("vayitzamed") to Ba'al Peor." "And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean": Vessels are protected (against tumah) in the tent of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but in (plague-spot) tents, with a covering. "a tzamid pathil upon it": and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil — whence they ruled: A jug which he turned on its mouth and smeared with clay from the sides is susceptible of tumah, it being written "a tzamid pathil upon it," and not "it upon a tzamid pathil." These are the words of R. Eliezer. "And every open vessel": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive (the same for) vessels of ordure, vessels of stones, and vessels of soil? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen vessels, which are subject to tumah, protect (what is in them against tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent of the dead, then vessels of ordure, of stones, and of soil, which are not subject to tumah, how much more should they protect (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead! "It is tamei" (without a tzamid pathil). Why (the stress on) "it"? What protects (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead, protects itself by a tzamid pathil (from tumah) through contact with a sheretz.

(Bamidbar 31:20) "and every garment and every vessel of skin": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 11:32) "or skin or sack," I know only of sack. Whence do I derive (the same for) every work of goats? (From the above.) Would you say that? It follows a fortiori! (i.e., why do we need a verse?), viz.: If in dead-body tumah (our instance) the more stringent variety, every work of goats is likened to sack, then in the instance of sheretz (creeping thing) tumah, (that of Vayikra), the less stringent variety, how much more so should every work of goats be likened to sack! — Would you say that? Do we derive the less stringent from the more stringent to be more stringent with it? Rather, why is "garment" mentioned in respect to dead body tumah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in sheretz, the less stringent variety, garment was likened to sack, how much more so (should this obtain) in dead-body tumah! Why, then, is "garment" mentioned in dead-body tumah? It is "extra" for the purpose of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: "Garment" is written here and "garment" is written elsewhere (Vayikra). Just as here, every work of goats is likened to sack, so, there. And just as there, (the articles must be) spun and woven, (sack being spun and woven), so, there, spun and woven. To include the band, the belt, and the saddle-band of an ass, which are spun and woven. To exclude cords or ropes, which are not spun and woven.