Comentário sobre Números 19:14

Summary: The Tiferes Shlomo discusses a particular kavanah that one may use to enthuse himself towards Torah study and mitzvot. It involves imagining that Gan Even gave a day to you, to come back and do teshuva. How would you conduct yourself during this day? Apply that feeling to fuel your personal avodah.

כל הבא אל האהל ALL THAT COMETH INTO THE TENT, whilst the dead body is within it, shall be unclean seven days.

WHEN A MAN DIETH IN A TENT. The meaning thereof is: “When a man dies, and he is now [lying] in a tent” [even though he may have died outside the tent and was later on brought in]; or it may be that Scripture speaks about the usual circumstances [and people usually die inside a building], but the same law applies if he died outside and they brought him into the tent. All that come into the tent and all that is in the tent — this includes the vessels therein and the tent itself, as He said [further on], and he shall sprinkle upon the tent and upon all the vessels and upon the persons that were there.³⁰Further, Verse 18. Scripture mentions the tent in order to let us know that the tent itself is rendered unclean for seven days, and [in order to become clean again] requires sprinkling [with the waters of purification]. Furthermore, the Israelites were tent-dwellers in the wilderness and Scripture spoke of the usual [circumstances at that time], because the commandment applied [both] immediately and for later generations; but the same law applies to a house and to everything that “covers” [a corpse], namely that they convey uncleanness to all the vessels and persons that are there, except that a house which is [permanently] attached to the ground cannot itself become impure [unlike a tent which is also defiled].
Now Scripture stated [that] a corpse [conveys] impurity by contact³¹Verse 16: And whatsoever toucheth … shall be unclean for seven days. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and by an ‘ohel,’³²Literally: “a tent.” This refers to the law that anything “spread over” an unclean object has the same effect as “a tent.” Hence if a tree shaded a corpse, the law of a dead body in a house or tent applies. but does not mention [that it also conveys impurity to the person who] carries it. Our Rabbis, however, deduced it by a kal vachomer³³Literally: “a minor and major.” See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208 for a fuller explanation of this principle. from [the law of] a dead animal,³⁴“If a dead animal, which only renders one impure until [the same] evening, and does not convey impurity by ohel (see Note 32), nonetheless does convey impurity [to one who] carries it — surely a corpse [which conveys impurity for seven days, and also by ohel, conveys impurity to one who carries it]! And just as in the case of a dead animal, touching it conveys impurity until the [same] evening and carrying it [likewise] conveys impurity until the evening, so also in the case of a corpse, where touching conveys impurity for seven days, carrying also conveys impurity for seven days” (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tumath Hameith, 1:2). and have included it in [the law of] uncleanness of seven days, just like [one who] touches [a corpse]. This is also in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture, for He mentioned in the case of one who dies [of his own accord] or was killed that he who touches him becomes unclean for seven days,³¹Verse 16: And whatsoever toucheth … shall be unclean for seven days. — See Vol. III, p. 129, Note 150, on the interchangeable use of the terms “clean,” and “unclean,” or “pure” and “impure.” and [requires] sprinkling [with the waters of purification]; and it is already known that [the word] “touching” in the Torah refers to actual personal contact, and to contact through another object, that is, by carrying it [in which case he is “touching” the object carried by means of the intervening object].

זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, "This is the Torah (law), when a person dies inside a tent, etc." The words זאת התורה in this verse can be explained along the same lines as I have explained the words זאת חקת התורה in verse 2. This is because the Torah commences this verse with the word אדם. Our sages in Baba Metzia 114 have taught us that the description אדם applies only to Jews. The Torah therefore teaches here that only the bodies of dead Jews are capable of conferring ritual impurity on people who are under the same roof; bodies of dead Gentiles are not able to have that effect on anyone under the same roof with them. The Torah wrote זאת התורה in order to provide the background to this halachah. Only people who have been given the Torah have absorbed the kind of sanctity during their lifetime which attracts the spiritually negative influences to their remains in swarms.

אדם כי ימות באהל, “a person who dies in a tent (roofed airspace).” The verse describes real, not potential, scenarios. The legislation described here applies equally to people who die outdoors and to whose remains are transferred to a roofed airspace such as a tent or house.

אדם כי ימות באהל, “when a person dies in a tent (or house), etc.” although the legislation which follows applies equally to people dying inside a house or other roofed structure, the Torah chose the example of “tent” since at the time the Israelites in the desert lived in tents. Legislation mentioned here is valid both at the time it was written and for all future generations. We learn from here that contamination caused by being in the same enclosed airspace with a corpse results only from the corpse of a Jew as only Jews qualify for the title “אדם.” (compare Ezekiel 34,31 “for you My flock are אדם”). Although there are verses scattered throughout the Bible in which the Gentiles are referred to by the same “title” (Numbers 31,11), the sages have already answered this apparent contradiction in Yevamot 61, namely the word had to be used there in order to distinguish Gentiles from beasts which were also numbered as part of the booty. A similar explanation applies to the verse in Jonah 4,11 where אדם is contrasted with the beasts. In other words, the only time the term אדם is used for Gentiles is when it is in contradistinction to בהמה, beast. We are still faced with the word אדם referring clearly to Gentiles in Psalms 124,2. Megillah 11 explains that in that verse the word אדם means “ordinary human,” not a “king.” Another instance which appears to bestow the title אדם on Gentiles is found in Isaiah 43,4. The Talmud Berachot 62 suggests that the word in Isaiah be read as אדום instead of as אדם, i.e. that the “people” G’d will give as ransom for the Jewish people will be the Edomites. A more problematic text involving the word אדם is Leviticus 18,5 on which Sanhedrin 59 suggests that even a Gentile who studies the laws of sexual chastity and observes them attains the level of purity reserved for the High Priest. It is pointed out that in the relevant verse the word for the Gentile is האדם as distinct from אדם. Whenever the Torah speaks of האדם, Gentiles are not excluded. This leaves us with Jeremiah 32,20: where G’d speaks of miracles performed “before Israelites and אדם,” which appears to imply that both peoples merited the miracles, i.e. were on similar ethical levels. The problem is answered by pointing out that whereas these miracles were beneficial for the Israelites, they were at the same time extremely damaging to the Egyptians who are referred to in that verse as אדם. It is clear therefore that far from equating the Israelites and the אדם, i.e. Egyptians as on a similar moral level the prophet wanted to contrast the levels of Israelites with that of people characterised as אדם.

While the corpse is inside. Rashi negates the following: Do not say the tent would always render one impure, even after the corpse was removed. Logically [this is not so] since there is nothing there to render one impure, for surely one is not touching or carrying any impure object. It is understandable when the corpse is in the tent, then we regard it as if the tent is filled with impurity. For since the impurity cannot be contained it spreads out and rise up, permeating the tent. However, it is [only] when it is not contained, that impurity permeates the tent, making one who enters the tent as if he had touched the impurity itself.

V. 14. טומאת מגע במת .זאת התורה וגו׳ ist bereits in den vorigen Versen besprochen worden. Es ist dies eine Empfangungsart der טומאה, die allen טומאות gemeinsam ist. זאת התורה: das hier folgende ist eine טומאת מת eigentümliche, תורה חדשה, wie ספרי es nennt, die nur bei מצורע, der auch מטמא בביאה ist (siehe Wajikra 13, 46), eine Analogie hat. Sie, טומאת אהל, findet nach einer Lehre (Jebamot 61a) nur bei מת ישראל statt, worüber die Halacha nicht ganz entschieden ist, während טומאת מגע ומשא ohne Unterschied bei jeder menschlichen Leiche stattfindet, worauf vielleicht schon das הנגע במת לכל נפש אדם des V. 11 hinweist. Ja, in Erläuterung des Satzes או בקבר (V. 18) זה קבר שלפני הדבור, womit auch קבר שלפני הדבור in טומאת מגע mit eingeschlossen wird, ist תוספו׳ daselbst der Ansicht, dass טומאת אהל bei קבר שלפני הדבור, d. h. bei allen vor Erteilung des Gesetzes Gestorbenen nicht angeht, כי ימות באהל heißt es, wenn von nun an und weiter ein אדם באהל stirbt, und ist מו׳׳ר המנוח מהור׳׳ר יעקב עטלינגר ז׳׳ל im ערוך לנר zu Jebamot 61a der Meinung, dass dies auch die Ansicht des רמב׳׳ם sei. Raschi fasst das קבר שלפני הדבור (Nasir daselbst) anders auf (vergl. Wajikra 13, 2).

זאת התורה, “this is the law;” what has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter is a statute of the Torah.

כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, “whoever enters the tent or whatever is in the tent already, etc.” This includes the utensils in the tent already, as well as the tent itself. We know this from the requirement to also sprinkle the tent itself with the waters and ashes from the red heifer. (Compare verse 18 where this is spelled out). The reason why the verse mentions the word אהל, tent, is to tell us that the person entering that tent itself has become ritually contaminated for seven days minimum. The verse also informs us by inference that the Israelites during their 40 years in the desert lived in tents. The Torah paints scenarios familiar to the people, seeing that the legislation would apply immediately, not only once they crossed the river Jordan into the Holy Land. The same rules would apply to permanent housing. However if such a house would be firmly attached to the ground it stood on the house itself would not become ritually contaminated. [The repeated use of the word אהל, tent is meant to exclude certain structures that perform functions similar to those of tents, i.e. houses attached firmly to the ground they stand on. Ed.]

כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone entering the tent, etc.” is contaminated as a result. If someone carries the corpse or touches it he is most certainly no less contaminated than someone merely sharing the same airspace with the corpse. Seeing that we have legislation decreeing ritual impurity on anyone carrying dead beasts which had died by natural causes as opposed to ritual slaughter although such impurity lasts only for a day, it is clear that carrying a human corpse would be at least as much a cause for contracting severe ritual impurity as if one merely shared the same airspace with it. This is why the Torah did not have to bother to spell out this detail in connection with contact with a corpse through carrying it. We find a similar silence of the Torah on the prohibition of a father sleeping with his daughter seeing the Torah had already forbidden sexual relations between the same man with his granddaughter (Leviticus 18,10). Another example of the Torah remaining silent on a law that can be derived by simple logic (קל וחומר) is the prohibition to eat meat and milk together. If the Torah had already forbidden for milk and meat to be cooked together, it is clear that it must not be eaten together either after it has been cooked.

כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, "everyone who comes into that tent and everything which is already inside the tent, etc." The difficulty in this verse is that if a ritually impure person entered the tent containing the dead body of a Jew and becomes defiled thereby why does the Torah have to tell us that the artifacts or another Jew already inside the tent become defiled by their presence in that tent? I have found the following line in Pessikta Zutratey. "The words כל הבא אל האהל mean that he entered only with part of his body." Accordingly, we may conclude that if the Torah had written only כל הבא אל האהל, I would have assumed that such a person contracts impurity only if his entire body enters the tent. How would I have known that he becomes ritually defiled even if only part of his body entered the tent? To teach us this the Torah also wrote כל אשר באהל. Seeing that the Torah had already told us that if one enters the tent with one's whole body one becomes ritually defiled, the words כל אשר באהל must refer to people who entered the tent with only part of their body. I have also found the following in that same paragraph of the Pessikta Zutratey: "An alternative meaning of these words could be that the words כל הבא אל האהל teach us that for halachic purposes we treat the floor of the tent the same as its airspace down to the bowels of the earth." It would appear that the authors were forced to come up with this interpretation because according to the reasoning employed in the first explanation the Torah should have written the two statements in the reverse order, i.e כל אשר באהל followed by כל הבא אל האהל. In that event I could have applied the principle of לא זו אף זו, that the Torah did not only teach me one lesson but also a second lesson. The first lesson would have referred to the entire body entering, the second lesson that even if only part of the body enters that tent the body still becomes ritually unclean. The fact that the Torah first wrote the words כל הבא tells us that the words כל אשר introduce a new halachah altogether.

כל הבא אל האהל, sofort mit dem Eintritt, selbst ספרי) הבא מקצתו), selbst wenn auch nur ein Glied des Körpers ins Zelt gekommen, in welchem eine Leiche sich befindet, ist der ganze Mensch טמא. Nasir 43a: דאהל המת כמליא טומאה דמי ומיד תוספו׳ שהושיט ידו בפנים כאלו נגע במת daselbst. Mit dieser Erläuterung dürfte sich die Frage des16 הל׳ טומאת צרעת מל מb lösen. Es ist nicht, weil ביאה במקצת שמה ביאה sondern weil es so gut wie נגיעה במת ist. — כל אשר באהל, nicht nur alles, was unter der Überdachung sich befindet, sondern auch, was im Grund und Boden vergraben liegt; der Begriff Haus erstreckt sich bis in die Tiefe, (5 ,15 ספרי אהלות) לעשות קרקעו של בית עד תהום כמוהו.

כל הבא אל האהל, “anyone who enters the tent (or house) in which there is a body of a human being, (and any item in the house at the time);” the reason that this has been spelled out is that you could have thought that ritual impurity originating in a dead body is transferred only through touching that body, but not through sharing the air under the same roof as that in which the body reposes. The novelty of this legislation is such that it needs to be spelled out. וכל אשר באהל, “and everything inside that tent (or house).” Why did this have to be written? if the Torah declared anyone entering such a tent as becoming ritually impure, i.e. before he had even entered with his whole body, it is understood that things inside that tent already and completely, will have the same status, no less. The answer is again that a penalty for something must be spelled out, and cannot be decreed merely by reasoning, however logical. Some commentators understand the line: כל הבא אל האהל, as including even living creatures other than human beings that are in that tent at the same time as the corpse is still there. The same would be true for chattels that had been in that tent while the corpse was still alive. (Source unknown)

However, in the Sifri on our verse I have seen both explanations, the first one attributed to the editor, and the second one attributed to Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah. The editor concludes by saying that the reason the Torah had to write the words כל אשר באהל although it had already written כל הבא אל האהל is to include someone who enters the tent only partially. The reason this had to be spelled out is that one cannot impose a penalty on anyone merely by applying logic but that this has to be spelled out in the Torah. I do not understand this comment at all; it is our tradition that this principle applies only to sins involving the death penalty by execution of a human tribunal. In this instance, even if the person in question entered the Sanctuary in a state of ritual impurity, he would be guilty only of death at the hands of heaven. Furthermore, the whole principle of אין עונשין מין הדין is not relevant here at all since the punishment had already been spelled out. Once we have established that a person is culpable for defiling part of his body, there is no need to inform us that he will be culpable if he defiles his whole body seeing that every part of his body is part of the whole body. The culpability for the former has been spelled out in our verse and has not been derived through mere logic.

דרך פתחו הוא טמא ואין מטמא בכל צדדיו כשהוא פתוח .כל הבא אל האהל, so lange das Haus eine zum Eingang und Ausgang bestimmte Türe hat, macht nur das Betreten des inneren Raumes, nicht aber das Berühren der äußeren Wände בית סתום .טמא aber und פרץ את פצימיו, ist aber die Türe mit Entfernung der bisherigen Türeinfassungen völlig vermauert, so hat es den Charakter eines geschlossenen Grabes und ist ספרי) מטמא כל סביביו, Baba Batra 12a; — siehe V. 16).

Der Begriff אהל wird durch jede Überdachung von mindestens einem Kubik-טפח repräsentiert und erstreckt sich auf alle Räume, die mit dem ein מת überdachenden Raum durch eine Öffnung von mindestens einem Quadrat-טפח verbunden sind (Oholot 13, 1f.; siehe daselbst).

So wie ferner ein אהל טפח die טומאה auf alle Gegenstände unterhalb verbreitet, so schützt es auch alle über demselben sich befindenden. Es ist מביא und חוצץ (Oholot 8).

That is that He commanded us to administer [the laws of] the impurity of a corpse. And this commandment includes all of the regulations of the impurity of a corpse. (See Parashat Chukat; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by a Corpse 1-25.)