민수기 19:20의 탈무드

We have stated⁹¹Mishnah Niddah 7:1.: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked⁹²The Babli, Niddah 56a, explains soaking 24 hours in lukewarm water. will not return to its former status is pure⁹³In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure⁹⁴Babli, Niddah 56a., so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure⁹⁵Babli, Bekhorot 23b. The argument is based on Deut. 14:21 which requires the animal carcass to be given to the non-Jewish resident or sold to the stranger. It is inferred that once a carcass can no longer be given away or sold, it has lost its legal standing as carcass. This corresponds to the rule, expounded at length in Tractate Kelim, that impure objects become pure once they have lost any commercial value., would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter⁹³In the Babli, Niddah 56a, this is qualified to mean that there is no impurity of flesh, but there is impurity of decay (requiring a spoonful for impurity.). The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay⁹⁶By the argument of Note 95, a decaying animal carcass has no commercial value and, therefore, is pure. “No decay” means “no impurity classified under the heading of ‘decay’ ”., so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh⁹⁷The argument of the colleagues is well taken; R. Yose accepts the impurity of human decay only for decaying bone material, not for decayed flesh., there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy⁹⁸Prov. 14:30..” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave⁹⁹Num. 19:20. This is a new statement. Touching a grave induces the impurity of the dead irrespective of the age of the grave and the person buried while in the opinion of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai only a Jewish corpse induces the impurity of a “tent” (Babli Yebamot 61a.) The Babli concurs (loc. cit.). R. Yannai’s statement is attributed in the Babli, 54a, to his student R. Simeon ben Laqish.”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he¹⁰⁰As confirmed by a fragment of baraita, Bar Qappara holds that any root may represent all 6 permutations of its letters. This cannot be classified as a derivation; it is a hint.) transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”.

HALAKHAH: “If one became impure in the Temple courtyard,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One verse says, he defiled the dwelling place of the Eternal⁶²Num. 19:13., another verse says, he defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal⁶³Num. 19:20. Why is this? To state a difference between one who became inside and one who became outside⁶⁴The two verses appear in the same Chapter. There must be a reason for the use of two synonyms. It is a hint that the rules are different for one who enters while impure and one who becomes impure inside. (There is another opinion, Sifry Num.126, that מִשְׁכָּן describes the movable Tabernacle and מִקְדָּשׁ the permanent Temple. The Babli 16b brings both opinions in the name of R. Eleazar.). If he became impure (inside)⁶⁵It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he bring his head and most of his body inside; if he became impure (outside)⁶⁵It is clear that the places of “inside” and “outside” have to be switched. A person already impure becomes guilty and eventually liable for a sacrifice at the moment his head and most of his body are inside the sacred precinct; one becomingimpure inside if he tarries long enough to prostrate himself. not unless he stay for prostrating. If he became impure inside and entered further inside⁶⁶Do we say that if he became impure inside and moved his head and body further inside instead of towards the outside that he is guilty on two counts?? Let us hear from the following: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” If he tarried, is that not as if he brought his head and most of his body inside, but you are saying, “he tarried that he could have prostrated himself.” And here, not unless he tarried that he could have prostrated himself⁶⁷The Mishnah makes it clear that only the time elapsed inside the sacred precinct determines his liability, not the direction of his motion.. How is that? About which of them does he become liable? About the first or the last⁶⁸The moment he became impure or the moment he stayed longer than necessary.? The colleagues say, about the first. Rebbi Yose told them, one says to him, leave, and you say about the first? But we must hold about the last⁶⁹This essentially is a repetition of the previous argument: Not the fact that he became impure determines his guilt but the time he tarried inside. The argument is recast as introduction to the next paragraph..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua,” etc. There¹⁹⁶Mishnah Ahilut 1:1., we have stated: “Two are impure from the dead, one is impure for seven days and one is impure by the impurity of evening¹⁹⁷As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. Three are impure from the dead, two are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁸Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:2: An object touching the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself (Sifry Num. 130). A second object touches the first; it becomes a source of original impurity; both need the ritual of Num. 19. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. Four are impure from the dead, three are impure for seven days and one is impure until nightfall¹⁹⁹Explained in Mishnah Ahilut 1:3: An object which touches the corpse becomes impure like the corpse itself. A human touches the first object, becoming a source of original impurity; a second object touches the human, also becoming a source of original impurity. A third object or a human touching the second object becomes impure in the first degree and can become pure at sundown.. How is it for two? Any person who touches a corpse is impure for seven days; a person who touches him is impure until nightfall,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: All are biblically [impure] for heave²⁰⁰Not only for heave but also for sacrifices: anything with a status of sanctity. But for profane food, humans, or objects, anything touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity; the person touching it or him becomes impure in the first degree. In biblical law, no human can become impure by derivative impurity. No person touching anything more than once removed from the corpse can become biblically impure., but for entering the Sanctuary only the second impure who touched the first impure. What is the reason? “A person who would be impure and did not purify himself²⁰¹Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.;” anybody needing purification is guilty for entering the Sanctuary; anybody not needing purification is not guilty for entering the Sanctuary. They objected: But a person who touches objects which touched a corpse needs purification, but is he the second²⁰²A person who touched objects which touched objects which touched the corpse is a third in line who is impure by biblical standards and guilty if he enters the Sanctuary unpurified.? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person²⁰³The statement of R. Joḥanan refers to impurity of a person induced by a person., not for impurity of a person from objects. The statement of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya [implies that] only the first is guilty²⁰⁴Anybody needing the ritual of Num. 19 but entering the Sanctuary without it is guilty of a deadly sin, as stated in Num. 19:20. The person only impure in the first degree, not subject to this ritual, is guilty of a sin but not a deadly one. As explained in Note 199, if the impurity is transmitted by an object, the human may be the second in the sequence.. Since [for impurity of] a person from a person only the first is guilty, so here the first is guilty. Rebbi Yose said, only if he immersed himself. That is a statement of Rebbi, since Rebbi said, all impure persons remain impure until the are immersed in water²⁰⁵The person impure in the first degree may still commit a deadly sin by entering the Sanctuary (Lev. 22:3) without immersing himself in water. But if he enters (or eats sanctified food) between immersion and sundown, he commits a minor sin (Lev. 22:7)..

Rebbi Illa said: He himself, who touched the corpse, is guilty²⁰⁶He holds that a deadly sin is only committted if a person impure by contact from body to body is entering the Sanctuary, not if the impurity was transmitted by contact with an object as explained in Notes 197,198.. He said it and gave its reason: “who became impure²⁰¹Num. 19:20: “This person will be extirpated from the congregation, for he desecrated the Eternal’s Sanctuary”.,” that refers to the impurity of a human. But is there not a third²⁰⁷How could it be that a person needs purification by the rites of Num. 19 and not be guilty entering the Sanctuary unpurified?? As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, for impurity of a person from a person a man is guilty for impurity in the Sanctuary²⁰⁸The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate.. They objected: If objects touch the corpse, a human the objects, and objects the human¹⁹⁷As explained at the end of the Mishnah, a person touching a corpse becomes a source of original impurity. A second person touching the first becomes impure in the first degree. The first is subject to the rules of Num. 19, the second can cleanse himself by immersion in water; then he will become pure in all respects at sundown (Lev. 22:7). For degrees of impurity, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137.. For impurity of a person from a person, not for impurity of a person from objects²⁰⁸The verse does not deal with the impurity transmitted by objects; its status remains indeterminate.. Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The Tanna there²⁰⁹Tosephta Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 says the same in different words. disagrees with Rebbi Illa: “For an object made half of cement־earth²¹⁰Probably clay is meant; earth of a consistency from which objects can be made. Clay objects are the paradigm of objects which can become impure; they cannot be purified except by being broken. and half of dung²¹¹Objects made of dried camel or cow dung cannot become impure. one is not guilty for coming to the Sanctuary²¹²If such an object was brought to the Sanctuary after being exposed to impurity, no sin was committed.” Because it is half of earth and half of dung; but if it were totally of earth, one would be guilty. Who is guilty? Not the one who touches it? Is he not the second who touches the first²¹³Since an object cannot be guilty, the human who touches it must be guilty. This contradicts both R. Ila and R. Abin bar Ḥiyya.? Rebbi Phineas said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if he threw it²¹⁴Somebody threw an impure clay object into the Sanctuary grounds. Then there is no question of a human entering the holy precinct.. He answered him, about him who threw it we stated: For washing his body he is subject to extirpation, for washing his garments to the forty²¹⁵A person is impure in original impurity who transmits impurity to his garments. If he enters the Sanctuary while impure, he commits a deadly sin with his body. But at the same time, he carries his impure garments into the holy precinct. This is a separate offense, punishable by 39 (= 40–1) lashes. The implication is that a person throwing an impure object into the Sanctuary is whipped but not subject to Divine extirpation.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose, do we not have the Mishnah in support of that first Tanna²¹⁶R. Ila, an Amora., as is stated: “Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” For the first, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for the second, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said²¹⁷R. Joḥanan holds that the entire discussion up to this point is based on a false premise. It is clear to him that anybody impure in at least the first degree is forbidden access to the Sanctuary on penalty of extirpation. R. Joshua’s statement only deals with the impurity generated by the corpse. Such impurity prohibits the person contaminated by it (or any of its derivatives up to the level of first degree impurity) from entering the Sanctuary if and only if it forces the nazir to shave., it is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary. Rebbi Jeremiah said, we were of the opinion that they disagree about a sacrifice, but one whips even the third, even the fourth²¹⁸He tries to salvage the opinions of R. Illa and R. Abin ben Ḥiyya, that everybody would agree that any person entering the Sanctuary in impurity commits a sin; the question would only be about a sacrifice for an unintended infraction. But for wilful transgression, the Mishnah in Ahilut is quite clear that it is punishable even for the third and fourth person.. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah in opposition to Rebbi Jeremiah²¹⁹He confirms the interpretation given in Note 217.: “For any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty if entering the Sanctuary, but for any impurity caused by a corpse for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty if entering the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Joḥanan²²⁰The order of the last two names has to be inverted: R. Yose ben R. Bun said in the name of R. Joḥanan who heard it from R. Yannai.: It is needed from what comes from the corpse: For a quartarius of blood or a quarter qab of bones, for which the nazir does not shave, one is not guilty; for half a log of blood and half a qab of bones, for which the nazir shaves, one is guilty.

HALAKHAH: One verse says²⁰²Num. 18:17., but a firstling bull, or a firstling sheep, or a firstling goat, shall not be redeemed; holy they are; and their blood you shall pour on the altar. Another verse says²⁰³Deut. 12:27., and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the Eternal, your God. If spilling, why pouring, and if pouring, why spilling? It was stated, shall be spilled, he may not let it fall in drips. Shall be spilled, he shall not sprinkle. Shall be spilled, he shall not pour. And it is explained in tradition²⁰⁴2 Chr. 35:11. that the priests pour the blood from the hands of the Levites. Everybody agrees on spilling how it is done; about sprinkling how it is done. Where do they disagree? About pouring. Rebbi Mana said, pouring is like spilling. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, pouring is like sprinkling. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, a verse supports Rebbi Ḥananiah: For the throwing water was not poured on him, impure he shall be²⁰⁵Num. 19:20, about sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow. Cf. Zevaḥim 36b/37a., etc. Does he not talk about sprinkling and calls it pouring?