Comentário sobre Números 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].