Komentarz do Liczb 19:20

ואיש אשר יטמא וגו׳ AND THE MAN THAT IS UNCLEAN [AND DOES NOT PURIFY HIMSELF … HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD] — If the Sanctuary is mentioned why is the Tabernacle also mentioned (in v. 13 “he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord”)? etc., as is set forth in Treatise Shevuot 16b.

כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “when he contaminated the Sanctuary of Hashem.” The word כי here does not mean “for, because,” but “if, when,” as it does in Deuteronomy 22,6 in the verse commencing with כי יקרא קן צפור, “if, or when a bird’s nest happens, etc.” The reason why the Torah mentions the penalty for failing to purify oneself as being karet, exclusion from one’s people [after death, of course, Ed.] both in verse 13 and in our verse is, according to some of our sages, to inform us that the legislation is applicable both to the Tabernacle, i.e. someone causing contamination of the Tabernacle, and to the permanent Temple in the future. (Makkot 13,14) It is possible to understand the two verses at face value, by understanding the expression את מקדש ה', as referring to the sacrificial offerings inside the Temple, meaning that in verse 13 the Torah speaks about the person having eaten from such offerings while in a state of ritual contamination he did not only become guilty for that but also for having conferred ritual contamination on the Holy Temple, whereas here the Torah speaks about someone who, though he immersed himself in a ritual bath, did not submit to the sprinkling with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his contaminated status. The words מקדש ה' then refer to the structure itself, not to what had become consecrated within it as an offering. [“Within” includes the courtyard, the location of the principal Altar. Ed.] Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation is in accordance with the plain meaning, i.e. that the first time we hear about the penalty of karet in connection with ritual impurity in verse 13 refers to touching the dead, as spelled out there, הנוגע, and the second time this penalty is repeated is to teach us that even if one only contracts this ritual contamination by being in the same roofed space, the penalty for failing to purify oneself properly is the same. This is why in our verse no mention is made of “touching” anything.

Why was Mishkon stated? Meaning: If the Torah said that one is forbidden to enter the Mikdash while impure, [we would derive using a] kal vachomer [a fortiori derivation] that [it is also forbidden to enter] the Mishkon (v. 13) which was anointed with the anointing oil [while impure]. The answer is that if it had said "Mishkon" but not "Mikdash", I would have said that one was liable for the Mishkon because it was anointed with the anointing oil, which is not the case for the Mikdash which was not anointed with the anointing oil [and] therefore he is not liable. Conversely, if it had said "Mikdash" I would have said that this law applies [only] for the Mikdash whose sanctity is eternal, which is not the case for the Mishkon whose sanctity was only temporary. Thus the verse informs us [that this is not so].

ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא, “but the man that shall become ritually contaminated and does not take steps to purify himself, etc.;” the reason for this verse is unclear as the substance of it has already appeared in verse 13, where the Torah spoke of such a person having entered sacred areas around the Temple, and having become guilty of contaminating that area, and deserving punishment. The Torah wishes to make clear that we should not think that the penalty of which the Torah spoke in verse 13 applies only if such a ritually contaminated person entered sacred domains after having previously touched the dead, not if he had only been in the same covered airspace with the dead, when he would not be punished with extermination of his family; therefore the Torah repeats this legislation here. [Anyone who is not a priest is not obligated to cleanse himself from ritual impurity until he has to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the festivals, or unless for one reason or another he is obligated to offer a sacrifice. Ed.] We have now heard about the penalty for failing to purify oneself, where did we have the commandment to do so? We find it in Numbers 5,2: “anyone stricken with a serious degree of ritual impurity has to be sent outside the camp of the Israelites.” Who would like to remain ostracised?

כי את מקדש ה' טמא, for he has ritually contaminated G-d’s Temple.” He did so when entering its precincts while in a state of ritual impurity.” Why did the Torah in verse 13 speak of the person having contaminated the Tabernacle, and here it speaks of the person having contaminated the Temple? Are they not two sides of the same coin? If the Torah had only written this about the Tabernacle, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Tabernacle is greater, as it had been anointed with the oil of anointing. If the Torah had written this only about the Temple, I would have thought that the sanctity of the Temple was greater than that of the Tabernacle, as theTabernacle was designed only as a temporary structure. (Talmud tractate Shevuot, folio 16).

That is that He also commanded us to bring a variable burnt-sacrifice for certain specific sins. And the sins for which one is liable for this sacrifice are impurification of the Temple and its sanctified objects; an oath of speech; and an oath of testimony. And that is one who is impure from one of the primary sources of impurity - as we set out in the introduction to the Order of Purities (Commentary on the Mishnah) - and entered the Temple or ate consecrated [food] inadvertently; and that is impurification of the Temple and its consecrated objects. Or that he swore falsely, as with an oath of speech that he inadvertently transgressed; or if he swore falsely with an oath of testimony - whether inadvertently or volitionally. Behold for any of these actions, he must bring a sacrifice that is called a variable burnt-offering. And that is His saying, "And if a person sin, and hear the voice of adjuration [... Or when a person touches any unclean thing...] and it be hid from him [and he come to know of it, and be guilty]. Or if a person swear, speaking with his lips [...] And it shall be, when he shall be guilty [...]. And he shall bring his guilt offering [...]. But if his means do not suffice" (Leviticus 5:1-7). And for this reason is it called a variable burnt-offering - because it does not remain one type; but rather he will once bring this type, and another time that type. Everything is according to what the means of the sinner, who is obligated to offer the sacrifice, suffice. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Keritot and in Shevuot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Offerings for Unintentional Transgressions 10.)