Комментарий к Бамидбар 19:13

במת בנפש [HE WHO TOUCHES] A DEAD BODY OF ANY PERSON — And what dead body is here intended? That of a human being (נפש האדם), the addition of בנפש האדם serving to exclude the person (body) of an animal, so intimating that uncleanness caused by it does not require sprinkling for its removal. Another explanation of בנפש is, that this term refers to a quarter of a log of blood (this being regarded as the minimum quantity necessary for maintaining life in a human being) (Chullin 72a).

HE HATH DEFILED THE SANCTUARY OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture mentioned this [punishment of] excision without explanation,⁵³I.e., without first saying here that one who is impure may not enter the Sanctuary or Tabernacle. saying, he hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal,⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. because He had already warned us against defiling the Sanctuary, just as He said, she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the Sanctuary.⁵⁵Leviticus 12:4. For since He mentioned [this prohibition] there in dealing with a lesser degree of impurity, namely, that of a woman after childbirth in the days of her purification, which is a natural event for her, it [is self-understood that it] applies equally to all impure persons. He has also mentioned the [requirement of] immersion [in a ritual pool for purposes of purification], saying, but if he wash them not [i.e., the garments which have become unclean], nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity,⁵⁶Ibid., 17:16. that is to say, he will bear his iniquity if he transgresses [the law and does] that which he is admonished not to do [i.e., if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary whilst he is still impure, or when he is wearing impure garments]. Therefore He stated here in respect of the impurity [conveyed] by a corpse that whosoever touches the dead⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. and purifieth not himself [with the waters of purification], even though he washes his clothes and bathes himself in water, is [nonetheless] considered one who defiles the Tabernacle, just as if he had not immersed himself [in a ritual pool] at all. Thus it was only necessary to mention that the purification [by means of sprinkling the waters of purification] prevents him from becoming pure [if he did not sprinkle them upon himself, even if he washed his clothes and bathed himself in water], this being the meaning of the expression, his impurity is yet upon him,⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice. that is to say, even though he has immersed himself [in a ritual pool] like all other impure people, he still remains impure, because the water of sprinkling hath not been sprinkled upon him.⁵⁴Above, Verse 13. — The Torah there uses the term mishkan (Tabernacle), and the same law applies of course to the mikdash (Sanctuary), mentioned here in Verse 20. Ramban here uses the terms interchangeably; and later on explains why the law is mentioned twice.
It is possible that the verse is referring to the man [mentioned above, who had become defiled by the corpse], and the meaning thereof is as follows: “whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself — ‘he who’ hath defiled the Tabernacle of the Eternal shall be cut off from Israel.” There are similar cases where the letter shin or the word asher [defining the nature of a relationship such as: who, which, that, etc.] is missing, [as in the following verses]: l’chol yavo g’vurathecha⁵⁷Psalms 71:18. [which is to be understood as: l’chol — asher — yavo g’vurathecha — Thy might to every one ‘that’ is to come]; v’chol yesh lo (and all he had) he put into his hand⁵⁸Genesis 39:4. [which is to be understood as: v’chol — asher — yesh lo — and all ‘that’ he had he put into his hand]; eth haderech yeilchu bah⁵⁹Exodus 18:20. [which is understood as: eth haderech — asher — yeilchu bah — the way ‘in which’ they must walk]. There are many such verses. And the meaning of the expression ‘ki’ he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal⁶⁰Here in Verse 20. is “‘when’ he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Eternal,” [this usage of the word ki being similar to that found in the verse]: ‘ki’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee [which means: “‘when’ a bird’s nest chance to be before thee”],⁶¹Deuteronomy 20:6. and [it is like] its many companion-verses.
Now Scripture mentions here [the punishment of] excision twice [once in Verse 13 in connection with defiling the Tabernacle, and again in Verse 20 in connection with the Sanctuary]. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁶²Shebuoth 16b. this is in order to declare him liable for defiling the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and also for the Sanctuary, i.e., the Permanent House [the Temple in Jerusalem].⁶³See Vol. II, p. 335, Note 598. According to the plain meaning [of Scripture] it may be that eth mikdash Hashem [usually translated: the Sanctuary of the Eternal] refers to the holy offerings. For He had already declared that he that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which pertain unto the Eternal, having his impurity upon him,⁶⁴Leviticus 7:20. is liable to excision; therefore He now declared furthermore that [in the case of impurity conveyed through a corpse] even if [the impure person] immerses himself [in a ritual pool] he is still liable [to that punishment], if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh day [with the waters of purification, before he eats of the holy offerings]. The meaning, then, of mikdash Hashem [literally: the “Sanctuary” of the Eternal] will be [as if it said]: kod’shei Hashem (the “holy things” of the Eternal), as in the expression eth mik’dsho mimenu⁶⁵Above, 18:29. [literally: “the Sanctuary thereof,” which really means: eth kodsho mimenu — “the hallowed part thereof”]. Thus the [punishment of] excision mentioned in [this] section refers to [entering] the Sanctuary [whilst impure, as stated above in Verse 13], and [eating] its hallowed offerings [in such a state, as mentioned in this verse here].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that [implied] by the literal meaning [of Scripture], namely that the first [mention of] excision [in Verse 13] refers to one who [actually] touches the corpse, as He said, Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead,⁶⁶Verse 13. and the second [mention thereof, i.e., in Verse 20 here] applies to those who were rendered impure by ohel³²Literally: “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 did not [actually] touch the bone or the grave; for the meaning of [the expression] but the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself⁶⁰Here in Verse 20. is: “but the man that shall be unclean by any of these means [mentioned in Verses 14-16] and shall not purify himself, [that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly].” By way of the Truth [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that the expression mikdash Hashem is alluding to the Sanctuary of the Sanctuary.⁶⁷A reference to the Glory of G-d (Abusaula). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 272.

עוד טומאתו בו, even though he had immersed himself in a ritual bath.

עוד טומאתו בו, “his contamination is still upon him.” A condition that continues indefinitely until he has purified himself.”

This excludes that of an animal. Meaning that once it is written “a corpse” it is obvious that it is “a soul”! Rashi answers that this is an explanation of the word “corpse,” meaning that the verse says “whoever touches a corpse” and [then explains] which type – “the corpse of a human soul…” [One might ask:] Above it is also written, “The corpse of any human soul” (v. 11)! The answer is that above it is written במת לכל נפש (lit. "The corpse to any [human] soul") and this is the equivalent of writing במת של כל נפש האדם ("The corpse of any human soul"). There the meaning of the lamed is like the lamed in Parshas Vayishlach (Bereishis 32:18-19): למי אתה (lit. "To whom are you?") meaning, “Of whom are you?” Also like the lamed in [the verse following] לעבדך ליעקב (lit. "To your servant, to Yaakov") meaning “Of your servant, of Yaakov.” But here the word מת ("corpse") and the word נפש ("soul") are both prefixed by a beis, thus it appears that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to both, [implying that they are independent of each other], as in the manner of a verb in a construct with a subsequent beis. Therefore, Rashi says that even so, the phrase “whoever touches” refers only to the word מת (corpse) and consequently he comments that “soul” is an explanation of the word “corpse.”

V. 13. כל הנגע וגו׳. Mit großer Präzision scheint hier Ausdruck und Konstruktion zur Vergegenwärtigung des Begriffs des טומאת מת gewählt zu sein. Es heißt nicht כל הנגע בנפש אדם אשך מת, dann würde in der Leiche die gestorbene נפש oder die נפש des gestorbenen Menschen vorliegen. נפש האדם und נפש האדם אשר ימות ist auch ein ganz anderes als נפש אדם und נפש אדם .נפש אדם אשר מת ist die Seele eines einzelnen Menschen und נפש אדם אשר מת die Seele eines gestorbenen Menschen. נפש האדם ist aber die Seele des Menschen, die Menschenseele überhaupt, und האדם אשר ימות ist nicht ein gestorbener Mensch, sondern der Mensch insofern er dem Tode erliegt, insofern er sterblich ist, נפש האדם אשר ימות demnach: die Seele des dem Tode erliegenden, die Seele des sterblichen Menschen. Jeder מת, jede Leiche vergegenwärtigt die נפש האדם אשר ימות, vergegenwärtigt den dem Tode erliegenden Menschen überhaupt und legt die Gefahr nahe, diese im Tode sich dokumentierende physische Unfreiheit auch auf das psychische Wesen des Menschen in dessen Verbindung mit dem physischen während des Lebens zu übertragen. — נפש האדם אשר ימות ist der lebendige Mensch, der sich der über ihn verhängten Sterblichkeit nicht entziehen kann, eine den Menschen beherrschende Notwendigkeit, die jede Leiche ad hominem demonstriert. Jeder gestorbene Mensch vergegenwärtigt den Sterbenden, den lebendigen Menschen, wie er dem Tode erliegt, der נוגע במת ist daher in der Idee נוגע בנפש אדם אשר ימות, und zwar בנפש האדם וגו׳ als ein generelles, den Menschen als solchen ereilendes Geschick. בנפש האדם וגו׳ ist daher motivierende Einleitung zu הנגע במת, er bedarf der חטוי, nicht weil er נוגע במת, sondern weil er durch die נגיעה במת in der Idee auf נפש האדם אשר ימות hingeleitet wird. Es ist also entweder Apposition zu במת oder, wie wir es übersetzt, ist das ב von מת das Medium, das vermittelnde ב.

עוד טומאתו בו, “his ritual impurity is still part of him.” He should not say to himself that seeing that if after seven days of counting this did not avail him anything to enter the sacred precincts around the Temple, at least it was good enough so that if he comes into contact with people, at least he will not transfer his ritual contamination to them; the Torah therefore states that having only performed part of the ritual is completely ineffective, he is as contaminated as previously.

את משכן ה' הוא טמא HE DEFILES THE TABERNACLE OF THE LORD, if he enters the forecourt even though after having immersed himself, but without having been sprinkled on the third and seventh days,

Refers to a quarter of blood. Which emanates from a corpse. [This teaches] that one who touched the blood would be rendered impure for seven days, requiring sprinkling on the third and seventh days. Accordingly, the meaning of the beis would imply [that the phrase “whoever touches” refers to the words “corpse” and “soul” independently]. This is why Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is a difficulty that the verse should have stated “or a soul…” given that “soul” is not an explanation of the word “corpse.” Therefore, Rashi also brings the first interpretation.

Wie aus V. 16 erhellt, ist daher auch טומאה nicht durch eine ganze Leiche bedingt, sondern jedes Teilchen eines gestorbenen Menschen, durch welches die Idee des ganzen repräsentiert wird, alles, wie Nidda 55a erläutert wird, שנברא עמו ואין גזעו מחליף, was mit dem Menschen geboren wird und, wenn verloren, sich nicht vollständig wieder reproduziert, ist מטמא. Also nicht Zähne, Haare, Nägel, die sich vollständig reproduzieren, wohl aber בשר Muskelfleisch, das bei Wiederherstellung נעשה מקומו צלקת, noch eine Narbe lässt. Blut wäre nun als sich vollständig wieder ergänzend von טומאה ausgeschlossen, wenn es nicht als nächster organischer Träger der נפש dies am ersten repräsentierte, und lehrt daher die Halacha an unserem Texte, הנגע במת בנפש וגו׳, dass רביעית דם הבאה מן המת מטמא (Chulin 72a; siehe zu Dewarim 21, 11).

עוד טמאתו בו HIS UNCLEANNESS IS YET UPON HIM, although he has immersed himself.

If he enters the [Mishkon] courtyard. The verse implies that when he is impure he defiles the Mishkon of Hashem, but why would the Mishkon be defiled just because he was impure. Rashi answers that it refers to a case where he was impure and then entered the courtyard before having been sprinkled upon. You might ask: Rashi should have explained, “If he enters the Mishkon…” [and not, “If he enters the courtyard.]” The answer is that if so, this would have implied that it was specifically now when he was impure that he was forbidden to enter, but that when he was pure it would be permitted. But surely a non-kohein is forbidden to approach the Mishkon, even when he is pure. Regarding Rashi’s explanation that this is even after ritual immersion, we need not ask that perhaps it is specifically only when he does not immerse that there is a prohibition for him to enter the courtyard. For Rashi himself explains the term, “His impurity remains,” by saying that it implies that he had somewhat purified himself, however part of his impurity still remained. This was because he did not have the sprinklings on the third and seventh days. If so, this implies that even if he had already immersed he would be forbidden from entering. Alternatively, it is written, “Because the sprinkling water was not sprinkled on him…” Learn from there that it refers to one who had immersed, because if he had not immersed the verse should have said, “He did not immerse in water and [the sprinkling water] was not sprinkled on him.” Rather, one must say that it even refers to a case where he did immerse.

את משכן ד׳ טמא, selbst wenn er טבילה genommen, so lange er nicht die hier vorgeschriebenen הזיות vollzogen, und ohne solche das משכן betreten. V. 20 heißt es ebenso כי את מקדש ד׳ טמא. Wenn משכן die Bedeutung des Heiligtums als Stätte der Gottesgegenwart ausspricht, מקדש, als Stätte der heiligenden Erhebung alles Irdischen zu Gott (siehe zu Dewarim 25, 8): so dürfte durch diese beiden Stellen der Begriff טומאה ebenso als Gegensatz zu dem durch משכן vergegenwärtigten Gottesgedanken, wie zu der Heiligung alles irdischen Seins und Wollens ausgesprochen sein, die im מקדש und durch dasselbe zum Ausdrucke kommt. Dass כרת nicht für die Unterlassung der הזאה, sondern für das Betreten des מקדש ohne vorgängige הזאה ausgesprochen sein könne, das ist nach dem ספרי z. St. schon aus dem vorhergehenden Verse evident. ואם לא יתחטא לא יטהר heißt es da, nicht עונשו לא יטהר ואין ,ואם לא יתחטא ונכרתה וגו׳ עונשו כרת. Es ist daher das את מקדש ד׳ טמא noch als zum Vordersatz gehörig aufzufassen: jeder, der nach Berührung einer Leiche ohne חטוי das משכן betreten und diesem damit טומאה gebracht hat, ונכרתה וגו׳. Wahrscheinlich jedoch ist das את משכן usw. einfacher Nachsatz und ביאת מקדש ohne הזיה liegt schon im ולא יתחטא. Im הזית vorhergehenden Verse war nämlich bereits ausgesprochen, dass ohne vorhergegangene לא יטהר שלישי ושביעי, er durch die (V. 19 ausdrücklich vorgeschriebene) טבילה am siebten Tage nicht rein werden kann. Daran schließt nun V. 13 den Fall, dass jemand ohne הזיה durch bloße טבילה sich als rein benommen, das heißt ja nichts anderes, als dass er sich ohne הזיה, wenn auch nach טבילה, mit מקדש und קדשים in Berührung gesetzt. Sein vermeintlicher טהרה-Zustand tritt doch eben nur in solcher Berührung hervor. In Wahrheit liegt daher schon in dem ולא יתחטא die ganze Konsequenz der ביאת מקדש oder אכילת קדשים ohne הזיה, und das את מקדש וגו׳ kann füglich als Nachsatz gelten.

טמא יהי׳ עוד טומאתו בו: das Fehlen der הזאה wirkt ganz so wie das Fehlen der טבילה. Das Gesetz über das Fernbleiben des טמא aus dem מקדש und von den קדשים ist bereits oben Kap. 5, 2 u. 3, sowie Wajikra 22, 2 ff., 15, 31 u. 5, 3 ausgesprochen, und tritt hier nur die Bestimmung hinzu, dass alle die der הזאה bedürftigen טמאי מת ohne הזאה selbst nach טבילה noch in der טומאה verharren.