Midrasz do Liczb 19:16

2) "and one who carries them": What is the intent of this? I might think that only merkav alone confers tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for mishkav and moshav? (But a verse is not necessary for this.) I know it a fortiori, viz.: It merkav, which does not confer tumah upon garments by being touched, does confer tumah upon garments by being carried, then mishkav and moshav, which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, how much more so do they do so by being carried! — (No,) this is refuted by the upper board and the side board of a coffin (viz. Bamidbar 19:16), which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, but which do not do so by being carried.

6) "the flesh of the zav": and not a detached bone, and not detached flesh. How much more so is (a bone or flesh) detached from one that is tahor, tahor. How, then, am I to understand (Bamidbar 19:16): "or the bone of a man or a grave"? That refers to a limb detached form a living man.

Rabbi Levitas, a man of Jamnia, said: Unless the father of a leprous person spit in his face, he will not be healed, as it is said, "And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?" (Num. 12:14). Hence (the sages) say: A male afflicted with unclean issue (needs) seven (days for his purification); a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days' separation); a menstruant (needs) seven (days of purification); one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification); a mourner (mourns for) seven (days); the wedding feast (lasts) seven (days); and a leprous person (requires) seven (days' separation). (Whence do we know that) a male with an unclean issue (requires) seven days (for his purification)? || (Because it is said,) "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing" (Lev. 15:13). Whence do we know that a woman with an issue (requires) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean" (Lev. 15:28). Whence do we know that a menstruant (requires) seven (days of separation)? Because it is said, "She shall be in her separation seven days" (Lev. 15:19). "Her separation" (or impurity) thou dost not read, but "in her impurity"; because Rabbi Ẓe'era said: The daughters of Israel have made the Law exceptionally stringent for themselves, so that if they see a blood stain of the size of a mustard seed they observe on its account seven days, after that they are cleansed (of their issue of blood). Whence do we know that one made unclean through a corpse (needs) seven (days of purification)? Because it is said, "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body… shall be unclean seven days" (Num. 19:16). Whence do we know that the mourner (mourns for) seven (days)? Because it is said, "And he made a mourning for his father seven days" (Gen. 50.10). Whence do we know that the (bridal) banquet (lasts) seven days? Because it is said, "Fulfil the week of this one…. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week" (Gen. 29:27, 28). Whence do we know that a leper (keeps) seven (days of purification)? From Miriam, as it is said, "And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days" (Num. 12:15).

(Bamidbar 19:16) "And all who touch on the face of the field": to include a (dead) fetus in its mother's body. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid and the frame of the coffin. "one slain by the sword": Scripture comes to teach about the sword that it is tamei for seven days, as is one who touches it. We have learned about implements and men (i.e., that the implement and the man who touches it are tamei for seven days.) Whence do we derive (the same for) implements and man and implements (i.e., for implements that touched the man who touched implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean," (garments being "implements"), "one slain by the sword or a dead body": A dead body is in the category of "one slain," and Scripture removed it from that category (for special mention) to equate what separates from him (i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the body itself. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "dead body" is not in the category of "one slain," for we find each being mentioned by itself. Whence, then is it derived that what separates from it is equated with the body itself? It is derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of lesser stringency, Scripture equated what separates from it with neveilah itself, then a dead body, of greater stringency, how much more so should what separates from it be equated with the body itself.— No, this may be so with neveilah, which confers "(until) evening" tumah, the preponderant (type of tumah), as opposed to a dead body, which confers seven-day tumah, the rarer type. — Would you say that? Where is the tumah itself more stringent? Is it not in a dead body, which confers tumah for seven days, whereas neveilah confers only (until) "evening tumah"? Whence is it derived that it (a dead body) confers tumah by being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz. If neveilah, of lesser stringency confers tumah by being carried, how much more so, a dead body, of greater stringency! — But in that case, why do we not say: Just as there (neveilah), the tumah is (only until) evening, then here (dead body), too, the tumah should be (only until) evening? Would you say that? Where touching confers seven-day tumah (i.e., with a dead body), carrying confers seven-day tumah. Where touching confers (until) evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah), carrying confers (until) evening tumah. R. Meir says: This is not needed (for the derivation). It is written (Bamidbar 31:19) "Whoever has killed a man, etc." Is Scripture speaking of (one who kills him with) something which is susceptible of uncleanliness or even of one who shot him with an arrow and killed him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Whoever killed a man or whoever has touched a slain one." The killer is being equated with the toucher. Just as the toucher (becomes tamei) by connection (with the object), so, the killer, by connection.

(Bamidbar 19:16) "or the bone of a man": This refers to a limb (cut off) from a living person. — But perhaps it refers to a bone the size of a barley-corn? "and upon him who touched a bone" already speaks of a bone the size of a barley-corn. How, then, are we to understand "or the bone of a man"? As referring to a limb (cut off) from a living person. And two "bones" are being spoken of, viz.: "or the bone of a man" — a limb (cut off) from a living person "and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn.