Мидраш к Бамидбар 19:11

(Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day on [it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” So that your [evil] drive not lead you astray by saying that there is eating and drinking in front of Him. Who sacrificed to Him before Israel arose? David said (in Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord?” [This is to mean], who offered sacrifices to Him? R. Abbin the Levite said, “[This verse means,] who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in sustaining orphans and feeding the hungry? After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word concerning sustenance, since it is stated (in Lev. 24:8), ‘On [every] Sabbath day he shall [regularly] arrange (ya'arokh) it (i.e., the bread).’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in bringing light to the eyes of those in the dark?⁷⁵Below, 10:6. After all, this word (ya'arokh) can only be a word denoting light, since it is stated (Lev. 24:4), “He shall set up (ya'arokh) the lamps upon the unalloyed lampstand.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable (rt.: 'rk) to the Lord”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in clothing the naked? After all, this word (rt.: 'rk) can only be a word denoting a garment, since it is stated (in Jud. 17:10), “a suit (rt.: 'rk) of clothes and [your] maintenance.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies [is comparable (ya'arokh) to the Lord]”: Who is like unto the Holy One, blessed be He, in waging war for Israel? After all, the word, ya'arokh, can only be a word denoting war, since it is stated (in Gen. 14:8), “and they marshalled (ya'arokh in the plural) for battle with them.” Another interpretation (of Ps. 89:7), “For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord”: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If your [evil] drive comes and says to you, ‘Who sacrificed to (fed) the Holy One, blessed be He, before the world was created,’⁷⁶See PR 48:3. say to him, ‘Consider that Moses ascended to the sky and spent a hundred and twenty days there. Let him tell you whether they were sacrificing to the Holy One, blessed be He. And in addition he was accustomed to eat; but when he ascended to Me, he saw that there is no eating and drinking in front of Me, and so he also did not eat, as stated (in Exod. 34:28), “And he was there with the Lord [forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water].”’” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “If your [evil] drive comes to say to you, ‘If there were no eating and drinking before Him, He would not have told me to sacrifice and offer libations to Him’; [then ponder] what is written (in Numb. 28:6), ‘The continual burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai’: Did they offer sacrifices on Mount Sinai? [No.] Rather observe that it was Moses who went up onto Mount Sinai. Let him tell you whether there were food and drink before Me. And so why did I trouble you and tell you to bring a daily sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “When a mighty man who is walking on the road is thirsty and goes to drink water, how much does he drink with his hands? Ten handfuls? Six handfuls? Four handfuls? Less than two he does not drink. Now all the water that is in the world would be a filling for the hollow of the Holy One, blessed be He's, hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12), ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?’ [It is so written] in order to make known that for Him there is no eating or drinking. [Then] why did He tell me to offer a sacrifice? In order to benefit you.” Ergo (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat [is born… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable for an offering by fire to the Lord].” (Lev. 22:27), “And from the eighth day.” This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19), “As for the fate of humans and the fate of beasts, [they have the same fate; as the one dies, so does the other die. They all have the same lifebreath, but the superiority of the human over the beast is nil ('yn)].”⁷⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11), “You shall not wear interwoven stuff, wool and flax together.” It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10), “You shall not plough with an ox and an ass together.” (Eccl. 3:19:) “[They] all have the same fate.” Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11), “One who touches the corpse of any human being shall be unclean.” Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39), “whoever touches its carcass shall be unclean [...].” (Eccl. 3:19:) “As the one dies, so does the other die.” Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16), “you shall kill the woman”; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15), “and you shall kill the beast.” (Eccl. 3:21:) “Who knows the lifebreath of a human that rises upward and the lifebreath of a beast that goes down into the earth?”⁷⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it, a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it, a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) “But the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn (i.e., nil).” What is the meaning of 'yn?⁷⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That [the human] speaks, but [the beast] does not ('yn) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('yn) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('yn) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('yn) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('yn) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19), “but the superiority of the human over the beast is 'yn.” What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2-3)? “When a woman emits her seed…. And on the eighth day [the flesh of his foreskin] shall be circumcised.” But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27), “When a bull or a sheep or a goat… and from the eighth day on it shall be acceptable [for an offering by fire to the Lord].”

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 22:27): AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY. This text is related (to Eccl. 3:19): AS FOR THE FATE OF HUMANS [AND THE FATE OF BEASTS, THEY HAVE THE SAME < FATE >: AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME LIFEBREATH, BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS NIL ('YN)].⁸⁷This is the translation required by the latter part of this section. A more traditional translation would be AND THE HUMAN IS NO BETTER THAN THE BEAST. It is written concerning the human (in Deut. 22:11): YOU SHALL NOT WEAR INTERWOVEN STUFF, WOOL AND FLAX TOGETHER. It is also written concerning the beast (ibid., vs. 10): YOU SHALL NOT PLOUGH WITH AN OX AND AN ASS TOGETHER. (Eccl. 3:19): {ALL} [THEY] HAVE THE SAME FATE. Just as the human contracts uncleanness, the beast also contracts uncleanness. It is written concerning the human (in Numb. 19:11): ONE WHO TOUCHES {A CORPSE SHALL BE UNCLEAN} [THE CORPSE OF ANY HUMAN BEING SHALL BE UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS]. Also concerning the beast (in Lev. 11:39): WHOEVER TOUCHES ITS CARCASS SHALL BE UNCLEAN. (Eccl. 3:19:) AS THE ONE DIES, SO DOES THE OTHER DIE. Concerning the human (in Lev. 20:16): YOU SHALL KILL THE WOMAN; and concerning the beast (in vs. 15): AND YOU SHALL KILL THE BEAST. (Eccl. 3:21:) {AND} WHO KNOWS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD AND THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH?⁸⁸This translation is required by the midrash. A more traditional translation in the biblical context would be this: WHO KNOWS WHETHER IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A HUMAN THAT RISES UPWARD, WHILE IT IS THE LIFEBREATH OF A BEAST THAT GOES DOWN INTO THE EARTH? Because the lifebreath of the human is given from above, concerning it a rising up is written. And because the beast is given from below, concerning it a going down is written. (Eccl. 3:19, cont.:) BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN (i.e., NIL). What is the meaning of 'YN?⁸⁹Eccl. R. 3:19(1). That < the human > speaks, but < the beast > does not ('YN) speak. And moreover, while there is knowledge in the human, in the beast there is no ('YN) knowledge. And moreover, while the human knows the difference between good and evil, the beast does not ('YN) know the difference between good and evil. And moreover, the human gets a reward for his works, but the beast does not ('YN) get a reward for its work. And moreover, when the human dies they care for him and he is buried, while the beast is not ('YN) buried. Ergo (in Eccl. 3:19): BUT THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HUMAN OVER THE BEAST IS 'YN. What is written concerning the human (in Lev. 12:2–3)? WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED…. AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY < THE FLESH OF HIS FORESKIN > SHALL BE CIRCUMCISED. But about the beasts it is written (in Lev. 22:27): WHEN A BULL OR A SHEEP OR A GOAT IS BORN, [….AND FROM THE EIGHTH DAY ON IT SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE] < FOR AN OFFERING BY FIRE TO THE LORD >.

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

(Bamidbar 19:11) "One who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean for seven days." Scripture hereby teaches about a dead body that it confers tumah by contact. — But even without a verse it follows a fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a tent, how much more so by contact! Why, then, is the verse needed? To include an eight-month birth (who died). This would include both an eight-month birth and his blood; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) "the soul (i.e., the body) of a man" — to exclude his blood (as conferring tumah). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: (It is written) "all the soul of a man" — to include his blood. "then he shall be tamei for seven days": Scripture hereby apprises us that a dead body confers tumah for seven days (unlike other instances of contact tumah, which obtain for one day only). (Ibid. 12) "He shall be cleansed with it": Why "with it"? (i.e., "it" seems superfluous). (The thrust of "it" is) with ashes that were processed as prescribed. "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture hereby apprises us that one who is tamei by a dead body must be sprinkled on, on the third day and the seventh day. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is sprinkled on, on the third day, he is clean on the seventh day, and if not, he is not clean on the seventh day. It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, he shall not be clean on the seventh day." — But still, perhaps the meaning is: Why is he not clean on the seventh day, because he was not besprinkled on the seventh day, but if he were besprinkled on the third day, then he is clean on the seventh day! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." Scripture repeats it to void it (otherwise). "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day": Why is this written? (i.e., it follows from what precedes.) Because it is written (Ibid. 20) "And a man if he become tamei and he has not been sprinkled upon, etc.", does Scripture make him liable to kareth because of the defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things or because he has not been sprinkled upon? It is, therefore, written "And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day." His punishment is not being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid. 13) "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man": As heretofore stated, to exclude an eight-month birth. "that shall die": Scripture hereby apprises us that he does not confer tumah until he dies. From here, you reason to sheretz (a creeping thing), viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man (actually) dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! Or, transpose it, viz.: If sheretz, the "lighter," confers tumah while convulsing, then a man, the "graver" how much more so should he confer tumah even while convulsing (and not actually dead)! It is, therefore, written "Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man that shall die." Why need "that shall die" be written? Why is it written? To apprise us that he does not confer tumah until he (actually) dies. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been nullified and the original a fortiori argument remains, viz.: If the "graver," a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man actually dies, then the "lighter," a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! "and he not be cleansed": Rebbi says: and he not be cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not brought his required offering, and enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the instance of a zav or a leper, who require an offering for their purification). You say, if he has not been cleansed by blood, but perhaps (the meaning is that) he has not been cleansed by the waters (of the red heifer)! (This is not so, for) "the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him" already speaks of the waters. How, then, am I to understand "and he not be cleansed"? (As) he will not be cleansed by blood," to include one lacking atonement, (as in the above instance). "and that soul shall be cut off': Why is this written (here)? Is it not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But because it is written (there) "The sanctuary ("mikdash," [i.e., the Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled," this tells me only of the mikdash. Whence do I derive (the same for) the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) "The tabernacle ("mishkan") of the L-rd he has defiled." "and that soul shall be cut off": And elsewhere (in the same connection [Vayikra 15:31]) "that they not die in their tumah." Why the difference (in terminology)? To teach that "kareth" and "death" (in this regard) are one and the same. "tamei shall he be": to include other varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and zav). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the verse) is not needed (for this teaching.) It is already written (Vayikra, Ibid.) "And you shall separate the children of Israel from their tumah, that they not die in their tumah by making tamei My mishkan which is in their midst." Tumah through a dead body was in the category (of all the varieties of tumah), and Scripture isolated it (here for special mention), and made it liable to death and to the bringing of an offering (for unwitting transgression), to teach about the other varieties of tumah (in this connection) that they are liable to death and to the bringing of an offering. How, then, am I to understand "tamei shall he be"? Because it is written "for the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him," I might think (that the intent is) if they had not been sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled (on the third day), but did not repeat (on the seventh day)? From "tamei shall he be." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he repeated, but he did not immerse? From "His tumah is upon him." Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he immersed, but did not wait for "his sun to set"? From "His tumah is yet upon him."