Talmud sobre Números 19:26

The Torah was given at Sinai through Moses' hands, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:19), "He wrote them on two stone tablets, and He gave them to me." And then later it says (Leviticus 26:46), "These are the decrees and the laws and the teachings that the Eternal gave, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Him and the children of Israel." The Torah that the Holy Blessed One gave to Israel was given only through Moses, as it says (Exodus 31:17), "Between Me and the children of Israel"; Moses merited to be a messenger between the children of Israel and the Omnipresent God. Moses prepared the inaugural ram and the anointing oil, and anointed Aaron and his sons with it all seven days of inauguration, and from it, all the high priests and kings are anointed. And Elazar burned the [red] heifer as a sin offering, with which impurities would be purified for generations. Rabbi Eliezer said: Great is this ritual, for it is practiced throughout the generations, just as Aaron and his sons were sanctified with this anointing oil, as it says (Exodus 30:30), "Anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them to serve as priests.”

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow¹¹The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there¹²Num. 19:2., this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement¹⁰The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also¹³The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b. is atonement through the High Priest.

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself³⁷The robber has to repay the robbery, not double the value he took as is the rule for the thief. It is assumed that the grandfather died after he forgave the grandson for the robbery and the grandson is the only heir. According to R. Joḥanan, the grandfather could not forgive and the grandson cannot inherit; therefore, the restitution has to be made to a Cohen. According the R. Simeon ben Laqish, the grandfather can forgive and the grandson can pay the principal to himself as heir, then sell the heave to a Cohen and pocket the money.
The statement is also in Pesaḥim 2:3 (29a).. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal³⁸Mishnah 6:4. Stealing and robbing from the Sanctuary have the same status; there is no double restitution. A fifth is required for illicit use of heave (Lev. 22:14) and of property of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:16). The two obligations are independent of one another and computed on the same basis..” Should he not pay three³⁹This is only a potentiality, not a certainty. If he denied stealing under oath, another fifth is due (Lev. 5:16). The heave can become property of the Sanctuary only if the Cohen dedicated it. Therefore, if the Cohen may forgive repayment, the thief cannot be forced to swear and there never can be three fifths. But according to R. Joḥanan, the tribe should be able to force the thief to swear in court and the Tanna should have noticed the possibility of a third fifth.? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery⁴⁰Since robbery and sanctity are incompatible, once it is holy it is not subject to the laws of robbery and the third fifth claimed by R. Simeon ben Laqish is not applicable.. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning⁴¹The red cow whose ashes cleanse from the impurity of the dead (Num. 19) must be slaughtered on the stake; its carcass cannot be moved.. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning⁴²The entire statement is R. Hoshaia’s in Babli Zebaḥim 113, in opposition to R. Joḥanan who requires the carcass to be moved in case it was slaughtered at a place from which the Temple doors are not visible; cf. also Sifry Ḥuqqat 124..

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion⁴¹Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough.. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling⁴⁷For the ritual of cleansing from the impurity of the dead, sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19). If the water only is sprinkled on dirt which would invalidate immersion, the implement is purified.. It⁴⁸The dough in the volume of an olive sticking to the trough, as described in the Mishnah. is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really⁴⁹S. Liebermann points to Yoma 6:4 (Note 83), where גּוּפוֹ “its body” is used as opposite of מַמָּשׁ “really it”. like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair⁵⁰Used as glue. is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling⁵¹The two statements are not quite parallel. Immersion requires that the object to be purified be completely immersed; “connection” then means that if the glue is wetted, the wood below also is purified. In sprinkling, only drops are used; if a drop falls on the glue, the object is not purified.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail⁵²Inoperative but still connected to the body., the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow⁵³A hollowed-out pumpkin used as a bottle. Since it is lighter than water, it cannot be immersed and filled with water without a ballast, usually a stone. While it is not part of the pumpkin, it is an intrinsic part of the bottle, as much as its hollow. All these are included in “connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked⁵⁴Downy facial hair. If a woman insists on removing it it acquires the status of unwanted dirt described in the Mishnah, being an obstacle to immersion and no receptor of sprinkling drops. is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels⁵⁵Num. 19:18.. But here, for you⁵⁶Many occurrences in the rules of impurity in Lev. 11: Babli Ḥulin 118a, a discussion of people having different needs at different times in Šabbat 48b., all you have use for.

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”.

Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said¹²⁹This name attribution cannot be correct since R. Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna, student of R. Meïr. A statement of his appears in Tosephta Ahilut 2:6, denying that people with a trepanned skull can survive a winter. Probably one has to read: R. Eleazar said., it was formulated following Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: ¹³⁰This refers to the Mishnah and explains why spine and skull were mentioned separately when “half a qab of bones” is also mentioned and both a skull and a spine fill the required volume of about 1 liter. A similar (anonymous) text is in Tosephta Ahilut 2:5: “A spine of which bones were removed is pure even if its outline still exists; But in a grave it is impure, even if broken, even if crushed, since the grave unites them.” The spine and the skull are impure even if crushed, even disconnected, because the grave unites them as “a human in a tent”¹³¹Num. 19:14..

MISHNAH: But for overhanging branches¹³⁶If the nazir walks under a tree under which a grave is suspected., or protuberances¹³⁷Standing out from a building or a fence and it is suspected that a grave may be buried underneath., or broken fields¹³⁸“The house of the broken-off piece” is a field which contained a grave ploughed under. Not only is the suspected place of the grave impure by biblical standards but the entire field is rabbinically impure since the plough might have caught a bone and transported it to another part of the field., or Gentile territory¹³⁹Which is rabbinically impure even in the Holy Land., or the cave door, or its frame¹⁴⁰גּוֹלֵל “the roller” is a large circular stone which closes the entrance to a burial cave. דּוֹפֵק “the knocker” is the frame which keeps the roller in place. The expressions were later transferred to burial in the earth, where “the roller” became the stone plate covering the grave and “the knocker” the stone frame on which it rests. Cf. Note 142., or a quartarius of blood¹⁴¹One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity., or a tent¹⁴²Everything inside a tent in which there is a corpse is impure (Num. 19:14). The tent confines the impurity; outside of the tent everything is pure. The impurity of a person touching a tent (or a “roller” or a “knocker”) from the outside is purely rabbinical. But cf. Note 164., or a quarter (qab) of bones¹⁴¹One-half of the amount which induces biblical impurity., or objects that touched the corpse¹⁴³An object inside a tent in which there is a corpse is a source of original impurity. But an object touching a corpse under the open sky becomes impure in a derivative way. Anybody touching such an object becomes impure in a secondary way which in most cases is only rabbinical; cf. Demay 2:3, Note 137., or the days of his counting or his being absolute¹⁴⁴This refers to the sufferer from skin disease. The nazir is enjoined from becoming impure by the impurity of the dead; in general, impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his status as nazir. “The days of his counting” are the eight days which the healed sufferer from skin disease has to observe between the preliminary and the final expiation ceremonies. These days do not interfere with his status as nazir but they cannot count since he has to shave all his hair on the first and seventh days. “The days of his being absolute” is the time in which the sufferer is declared to be certainly impure. Then he is required not to shave his hair (Lev. 13:45); nevertheless, these days do not count towards the fulfillment of his vow., the nazir does not shave¹⁴⁵If his impurity is caused by a corpse and either is rabbinical or questionable. but sprinkles on the third and seventh days¹⁴⁶Num. 19:12., does not disregard the preceding¹⁴⁷The time he is in any state of impurity caused by the dead, whether rabbinical or questionable, cannot be counted towards fulfillment of his vow of nazir. But the preceding and following days count and after purification he simply completes the count; he does not start anew., starts counting immediately, and has no sacrifice. In truth¹⁴⁸This expression is a label for an old, pre-Mishnaic, rule., the days of a male or female sufferer from flux¹⁴⁹Lev. 15. As explained in Note 144, this impurity generated by the nazir’s own body has no influence on his state of nezirut. “The days of quarantine” are those in which the possible sufferer from skin disease is put under observation before his final status is determined (Lev. 13:4,5,21,26, 31). and the days of quarantine of the sufferer from skin disease are counted for him.

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: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle¹⁵⁰Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently¹⁵¹Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively¹⁵²Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently⁶²“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh¹⁵³Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked¹⁵⁴He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone¹⁵⁵Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain¹⁵⁶For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person¹⁵⁷Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle¹⁵⁰Mishnah 2 spells out for which biblical impurities the nazir has to shave; the implication is that for anything less he does not have to shave. Mishnah 3 has a list of rabbinic impurities for which the nazir does not have to shave; the implication is that for anything more he has to shave. We are left without instructions for cases which fall in between.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently¹⁵¹Anything not covered by Mishnah 2 is not biblical; the nazir is prevented from shaving.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively¹⁵²Anything not exempted by Mishnah 3 requires shaving and a new start. The Babli, 53b, reports the same opinions, limited to the case taken here as illustration.. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently⁶²“Sufficient flesh” is enough left on a limb connected to a living body that it could heal. covered by flesh¹⁵³Mishnah Ahilut 1:8 spells out that such a limb induces impurity by touch or carrying but not in a tent.. Rebbi Yose asked¹⁵⁴He questions R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position.: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone¹⁵⁵Num. 19:16. In v. 18, only “bone” is mentioned but not “human”. This is interpreted in Sifry Num. #127,129 to cover bones coming from both living or dead persons; cf. Babli 54a, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 19:16,18.”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain¹⁵⁶For a bare bone, everybody agrees that a barley grain represents the minimum size which induces impurity. According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, a bone fragment with some flesh is not subject to a legal minimum.! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person¹⁵⁷Without a minimum; Sifry Num. #127., that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

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..

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical¹⁰⁵Since the Cow is treated as a sanctum, it is clear that until its ashes are collected as required in Num. 19:9, any action not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in vv. 2–9 will invalidate the procedure and usufruct of correct procedure will be larceny of sacra. According to the general principle that once the required procedures are executed, there can be no longer larceny of sacra, the problem is to decide whether the correct preparation of the ashes is the final step in this regard, or the sprinkling on a person impure in the impurity of the dead, as described in the verses following. To say that it would be logical is tantamount to a statement that one could argue the second position but, since the answer is not clear from the biblical text, it is up to the Court overseeing the Temple to decide which opinion to follow. that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state¹⁰⁶Babli Menaḥot51b/52a.: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,]¹⁰⁷Corrector’s addition following B and M, correct but not absolutely necessary. with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant¹⁰⁸Reading as Arabic שקשק “to rinse”. and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it¹⁰⁹But biblically the ashes never could lead to larceny of sacra.. When they were fenced in¹¹⁰It was certain that no illegitimate use would be tolerated., they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

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)..

“ ‘Field Stones’⁸⁴Reading of the Venice print; the Leyden ms. has two dots over the ב. But also in Sifra Šemini 4|6|5 it is stated on Lev. 11:27: “ ‘All that walks on its soles’ that is the monkey, ‘all that walks’ includes hedgehog and squirrel mole, field stones and seals.” אבני השדה for אדני השדה refers to Job 5:23: “Your covenant is with ‘field stones’.” is an animal.” Yassi from Arke: It is a mountain man and lives from its navel. If its umbilical cord is cut, it cannot live. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The reason of Rebbi Yose (Num. 19:16): “All that touches [a slain person] on the surface of the field”, when it grows on the field.

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.

“¹¹⁴Toesephta Demay 1:12–14 {commentary in braces}: “12. A storage facility into which Jews and Gentiles contribute; if the majority are Gentile it is certain, if the majority are Jewish, it is demay; these are the words of R. Meïr {who holds that produce of the Holy Land is subject to heave and tithes even if grown by a Gentile.} But the Sages say, it is demay even if all the contributors are Gentile except one Jew {since produce of the Holy Land is not subject to heave and tithes if grown by a Gentile.} 13. Rebbi Yose said, when are these words said, for a private storage facility, but at a government storage facility {for storing taxes paid in kind} one follows the majority. They said to him, you taught us about the storage facility of Jabneh, which is inside the walls, that it is demay, and most of the contributors are Samaritans {who are subject to tithes but certainly will not tithe what they personally do not use}; but a storage facility outside the Land, e. g., that of Ragab {a place in Jordan} is obligated only according to percentages {of the supply coming from the Land.} 13. Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai said, all my life I read this verse (Num. 19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ and I did not understand it until the storage at Jabneh; I learned from the storage facility at Jabneh that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qabusai¹¹⁵A Tanna of the Fourth generation, son-in-law of R. Aqiba. His father-in-law considers Samaritans as true converts (Babli Qiddušin 75b) but thinks one cannot intermarry with them because of their deviating interpretation of some incest prohibitions. said, all my life I read this verse (Num.19:19): ‘The pure shall sprinkle on the impure,’ that one pure person sprinkles on one impure person, until I learned it from the storage facility at Jabneh. This means that one pure person sprinkles on many impure persons.¹¹⁶Since one rabbinic Jew makes demay in the presence of many Samaritans.
{In the Babli, Nazir 61b, the verse is taken to mean that only a person who may become impure by Biblical standards, i. e., a Jew, can sprinkle the water with the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse another Jew from the impurity of the dead. In Sifry,Num.129, R. Aqiba infers that the water was purifying only if a pure person sprinkles on an impure one but sprinkling on a pure person makes him impure. This is accepted by the Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:2 (fol. 38d); a Babli source (Yoma 14a) quotes and follows a dissenting opinion of the Sages. Sifry zuta,Ḥuqqat 19, notes that only a pure person becomes impure; a person impure but not through a corpse is not influenced by being sprinkled. Since Sifry zuta in general follows R. Ismael, this supports the position of the Yerushalmi that R. Aqiba’s statement is accepted by everybody.}”

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi.. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut⁹⁶The second hermeneutical rule used in an extended sense, not only that a word has identical meaning in all its occurrences in the Pentateuch but also that all rules connected with it are identical in the two cases being compared. This extended rule requires that the word be free, i. e., not needed to derive other rules. It is difficult to construct the word “yoke” as free in the case of the red cow.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke⁹⁷The gezerah šawah invoked by R. Ze‘ira strictly follows the interpretation of (the later) R. Yose. The interpretation of R. Jonah therefore is rejected implicitly., so for the “yoke” said for the cow⁹⁸The red cow whose ashes are used for purification from the impurity of the dead, Num. 19. Verse 19:2 states that the cow (1) must be unblemished and (2) cannot have borne a yoke. Condition (1) is not mentioned for the calf and is explicitly excluded by the Mishnah. (2) implies that the cow is disabled even if no work was ever done or intended. In rabbinic interpretation, the cow had “borne a yoke” if she was mounted by a male. we have to treat all work as a yoke⁹⁹Work is not mentioned in Num. 19:2; its prohibition is inferred from the case of the calf.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional¹⁰⁰Following R. Yose, the yoke disables irrespective of intention (with some qualifications). Since R. Yose extends the rules of the yoke to all work, he will do the same for the red cow., so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables¹⁰¹For the cow, Num. 19:2 makes it clear that even if a yoke accidentally fell on the cow, it disables permanently., also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable¹⁰²This would contradict the Mishnah.? The verse¹⁰³Num. 19:2. says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf¹⁰⁴The same argument Babli 46a, in an expanded version Sifry Num. 123.. Then it also says¹⁰⁵Deut. 21:3. “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?¹⁰⁶This is blatantly false, Lev. 22:17–25. Therefore, the only case which the emphatic this one excludes is that of the calf. In Sifry Num. 123, it is concluded that the cow must be unblemished but not the Cohen who burns it in a ceremony outside the sanctuary.

“And for the Red Cow if his hands became impure so became his body¹⁶¹Even if according to rabbinic rules the rabbinic impurity of his hands does not imply impurity of the body, for handling the ashes of the Red Cow or water containing such ashes he must be considered impure and therefore disqualified..” Rebbi Ḥanina said, not that they introduced new impurities for the Red Cow but they said, he who becomes impure in an easy impurity is like one who became impure in severe impurity¹⁸⁴An easy impurity is one which is removed by immersion in a miqweh. A severe impurity needs some additional action, either a waiting period or a sacrifice to regain access to Temple and sancta.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: And it shall be collected by a man, why does the verse say, pure¹⁸⁵Num. 19:9.? Think of it. Even if you collect it by a shovel, the Torah requires pure. Where do we hold? If a metal shovel, but also flat metal implements are subject to impurity. If a wooden shovel, is it not held together because of something subject to impurity¹⁸⁶Any metal object is subject to impurity. A wooden object is subject to impurity if it encloses a volume; it becomes impure by being used as a container. Therefore it seems that the collection of the ashes, required by the verse, is an impossible task.? Rav Hoshaia said, explain it if he collects it with a plank¹⁸⁷A flat piece of wood is impervious to impurity.. Then it is impossible that he should not carry it¹⁸⁸In most cases of severe impurity, such as carcasses of non-kosher four-legged animals, and impurity caused by human bodies, carrying the impure object without touching it, causes the carrier to be impure (Lev. 11:28, 15:10). Since in relation to the ashes of the Cow any impurity is severe, there is transfer of impurity even if the ashes are carried on a wooden plank which itself cannot become impure.. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said, explain it if he collects it with a coarse cross-beam¹⁸⁹Greek μέλαθρον. This not only is a flat piece of wood, it is so heavy that the load of ashes is not noticeable; it causes no impurity by carrying.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Immi: what is the difference between a person pure for the Red Cow and an empty vessel pure for the Red Cow¹⁹⁰The Mishnah (Note 174) extends impurity automatically only for humans, not to vessels.? He answered him, And it shall be collected by a pure, why does the the verse say, man? Only to prescribe extraordinary purity to the man to handle the water for ashes of the Red Cow and the ashes of the Red Cow. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The moving which I declared pure for you for crawling animals¹⁹¹In the special section about impurity of dead crawling animals (Lev. 11:29–38), impurity by carrying is not mentioned. I declared impure for you here¹⁹²The rabbinic restrictions in the case of the ashes of the Cow are justified biblically..

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses⁹³Num. 19:18.. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written⁹⁴Num. 19:19., the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. ⁹⁵From here on this paragraph and the next are from Šabbat2, Notes 63–71. This paragraph is connected with the Mishnah here since it states only that immersion of males has to be during daytime. The next paragraph has no connection, it simply is copied from Šabbat. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night⁹⁶Babli Šabbat121a, Pesaḥim90b, Yoma6a, 87a.. A woman after her period whose time has passed⁹⁷After the first evening she could have immersed herself after her period; cf. Niddah4:1 Note 3. Babli Niddah67b. immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre⁹⁸As practice to be followed., a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There⁹⁹In Babylonia, where the statement was attributed to R. Joḥanan; Niddah67b. There, the reason is given “because of the discipline of her daughter”, that she should learn the rules clearly. they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis¹⁰⁰The household of R. Jehudah Nesia. The deviation of Galilean from Babylonian practice is confirmed. immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

“Nor immerses,” for it is written, he sprinkles, he immerses⁹³Num. 19:18.. Since sprinkling is during daytime, also immersion is during daytime. From where that sprinkling is during daytime? For it is written⁹⁴Num. 19:19., the pure one sprinkles on the impure one on the third day. ⁹⁵From here on this paragraph and the next are from Šabbat2, Notes 63–71. This paragraph is connected with the Mishnah here since it states only that immersion of males has to be during daytime. The next paragraph has no connection, it simply is copied from Šabbat. All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night⁹⁶Babli Šabbat121a, Pesaḥim90b, Yoma6a, 87a.. A woman after her period whose time has passed⁹⁷After the first evening she could have immersed herself after her period; cf. Niddah4:1 Note 3. Babli Niddah67b. immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre⁹⁸As practice to be followed., a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There⁹⁹In Babylonia, where the statement was attributed to R. Joḥanan; Niddah67b. There, the reason is given “because of the discipline of her daughter”, that she should learn the rules clearly. they say, even one whose time has passed not, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of the family of our rabbis¹⁰⁰The household of R. Jehudah Nesia. The deviation of Galilean from Babylonian practice is confirmed. immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

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?

¹⁴⁸Bulls and he-goats to be burned.And he who burns¹⁴⁹Lev. 16:28.. Not the one who starts the fire, and not the one who prepares the stake. Who is he who burns? That is the one who helps during the burning. [Rebbi Yose said, this implies that the one who helps during the burning]¹⁵⁰Corrector’s addition. makes his garments impure. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: One who turns over an olive-sized piece¹⁵¹Less than this amount is not considered “consumed”. makes his garments impure. The problem is only one who stands inside¹⁵²The Temple domain, or possibly the city of Jerusalem. and in his hand is a beam with which he turns over an olive-sized piece, [what is the rule]¹⁵³Unnecessary corrector’s addition.? Let us hear from the following: And he shall take out, and he shall burn¹⁵⁴Lev. 4:12, about the Anointed Priest’s bull.. Since one who takes out, only after he took to the outside, also he who burns only if he burns outside¹⁵⁵Since the two expressions are written in the same verse.. There¹⁵⁶About burning the carcass of the Red Cow. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be impure until the evening¹⁵⁷Num. 19:7.; to include him who burns¹⁵⁸Even though the verse speaks only of the Cohen who directs the ceremony, all his helpers are included.. Here it is the same¹⁵⁹About bulls and he-goats to be burned; Sifry Num. 124..

So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.¹⁰⁹Babli 9a; Tosephta 1:10. The Babli 9b points out that there are three levels of variable sacrifices and the argument of Note 84 excludes only the sacrifice of the very poor for the High Priest. In R. Simeon’s opinion, the High Priest is still liable at least for a poor man’s sacrifice for disregarding a summons to testify.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate¹¹⁰Lev. 21:12. The argument seems to be: If the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary, he has no occasion to desecrate it. Therefore the verse is read as: and the Sanctuary he shall not leave; he will not desecrate. The implication would be that the High Priest not only is exempt from bringing a sacrifice (which is a dubious distinction since it denies him a means of atonement) but his infraction of the Sanctuary’s purity does not need atonement.. Rebbi Ashian¹¹¹A student of R. Jonah’s. The reading of B, R. Joshia, referring to an Amora preceding R. Jonah by two generations, is impossible., Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate¹¹²Lev. 21:13. The next verse gives the reason for the prohibition: So he may not desecrate his descendants. Since the child of a Cohen from a woman forbidden to him by the special rules of the priesthood is desecrated, R. Johanan’s interpretation of v. 12 is shown to be unacceptable.? What about it? ¹¹³A slightly different version of the following is in the Babli, 9b. Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community¹¹⁴Num. 19:19. The entire Chapter deals with the preservation of the purity of the Sanctuary (Sifry Num. 129).. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community¹¹⁵By his office he is excluded from being one of the community. His sacrifice is either a bull or nothing; the sacrifice of a member of the community is the variable offering (a female sheep or goat, or two pigeons, or flour.). They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community¹¹⁶It always is a goat.? It is equal on the day of Atonement¹¹⁷On that day, the High Priest brings three sacrifices (Lev. 16) cf. Note 16. The first one for himself and his family; the second for his fellow priests and their families, and the third a double offering for the people. There the king (unless he is a usurping High Priest and king) is included with the people.. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year¹¹⁸The lesser priests are subject to the rules of the variable value sacrifice.. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside¹¹⁹On the Day of Atonement, only the blood of the first and third sacrifices are brought inside the Temple to purify the incense altar; the blood of the second sacrifice, the atonement of the priests, is sprinkled on the large outside alter like any other sacrifice. Similarly, the blood of the prince’s purification sacrifice is treated like that of a commoner, to be sprinkled on the outside altar..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified¹⁶¹This must read “disqualified” since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1 states without dissent that slaughter of sacrifices by a Non-Cohen, a woman, or a slave, is qualified. by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow¹⁶²The Red Cow (Num. 19). Here one has to switch the places of “slaughters” and sprinkles.” Rav instructed that in baraitot specifying where a Cohen is indispensable, it always should mention sprinkling (mostly pouring the blood on the altar) but not slaughtering. But he requires that the Cow be slaughtered by a Cohen even though Num. 19:3 states only that somebody has to slaughter the Cow in the Cohen’s presence. state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified]¹⁶³The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, consistent with his earlier text, but materially wrong. The text in brackets is the corrector’s; its correctness is shown by the following argument of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles¹⁶⁴Num. 19:3, 4. This sprinkling is not that of water with the ashes of the Red Cow, but of its blood, and the verse specifies that it has to be done by the Cohen.? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man¹⁶⁵The main thrust of Num. 19:18 is that it describes a rite which does not require a Cohen., also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman¹⁶⁶If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day?. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written¹⁶⁷Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified¹⁶¹This must read “disqualified” since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1 states without dissent that slaughter of sacrifices by a Non-Cohen, a woman, or a slave, is qualified. by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow¹⁶²The Red Cow (Num. 19). Here one has to switch the places of “slaughters” and sprinkles.” Rav instructed that in baraitot specifying where a Cohen is indispensable, it always should mention sprinkling (mostly pouring the blood on the altar) but not slaughtering. But he requires that the Cow be slaughtered by a Cohen even though Num. 19:3 states only that somebody has to slaughter the Cow in the Cohen’s presence. state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified]¹⁶³The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, consistent with his earlier text, but materially wrong. The text in brackets is the corrector’s; its correctness is shown by the following argument of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles¹⁶⁴Num. 19:3, 4. This sprinkling is not that of water with the ashes of the Red Cow, but of its blood, and the verse specifies that it has to be done by the Cohen.? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man¹⁶⁵The main thrust of Num. 19:18 is that it describes a rite which does not require a Cohen., also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman¹⁶⁶If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day?. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written¹⁶⁷Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”¹⁹⁷This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”.
A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed¹⁹⁸Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.
The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure¹⁹⁹Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).. [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.¹⁹⁵As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.

[A house in] Jerusalem cannot contract ritual impurity of leprous marks. Nor can it be judged as a condemned city. Nor can one build ledges, balconies, or water channels in public spaces, because they create an enclosure for (death and) impurity.¹Which would render ritually impure anyone who shared the space with a corpse. Nor may a corpse be left there overnight. Nor may human bones be carried through the city. Nor may a stranger be given permanent residence there. Nor may graves be placed there, except for the graves of members of the House of David or the prophetess Hulda, which have been there from the days of the first prophets. (And when they removed all the graves from the city, why were these not removed?) They say there was a grotto there that would take all the impurities out into the Kedron River. One may not plant any plants there. Nor may one make a garden or an orchard there, aside from the rose gardens which have been there since the days of the first prophets. Nor may one raise (geese or) chickens there, let alone pigs. Nor may garbage heaps be established there, because of impurity.²Because repugnant creatures are attracted to such heaps, and they impart ritual impurity upon their death. A stubborn and rebellious son cannot be judged there, said Rabbi Natan, for it says (Deuteronomy 21:19), “His father and mother shall grab him and take him to the elders of the city, to the gate of his place”; but this is not his city, nor his place. Houses sold there cannot include the land they are on. [Houses cannot be sold as a permanent possession] in the city after twelve months. Rent may not be collected there, except for [the use of] beds and mattresses. Rabbi Yehudah said: even rent for beds and mattresses [was not collected].
What would they do with the skins of the sacrificed animals? They would give them to the owners of guest houses. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: innkeepers were inside the city, and the owners of guest houses were outside. The innkeepers would buy sheepskins with fine wool for four or five sela and then sell them to the people of Jerusalem, and that is how these homeowners got rich.