Мидраш к Бамидбар 31:24

(Bamidbar 19:16) "And all who touch on the face of the field": to include a (dead) fetus in its mother's body. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid and the frame of the coffin. "one slain by the sword": Scripture comes to teach about the sword that it is tamei for seven days, as is one who touches it. We have learned about implements and men (i.e., that the implement and the man who touches it are tamei for seven days.) Whence do we derive (the same for) implements and man and implements (i.e., for implements that touched the man who touched implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean," (garments being "implements"), "one slain by the sword or a dead body": A dead body is in the category of "one slain," and Scripture removed it from that category (for special mention) to equate what separates from him (i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the body itself. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: "dead body" is not in the category of "one slain," for we find each being mentioned by itself. Whence, then is it derived that what separates from it is equated with the body itself? It is derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of lesser stringency, Scripture equated what separates from it with neveilah itself, then a dead body, of greater stringency, how much more so should what separates from it be equated with the body itself.— No, this may be so with neveilah, which confers "(until) evening" tumah, the preponderant (type of tumah), as opposed to a dead body, which confers seven-day tumah, the rarer type. — Would you say that? Where is the tumah itself more stringent? Is it not in a dead body, which confers tumah for seven days, whereas neveilah confers only (until) "evening tumah"? Whence is it derived that it (a dead body) confers tumah by being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz. If neveilah, of lesser stringency confers tumah by being carried, how much more so, a dead body, of greater stringency! — But in that case, why do we not say: Just as there (neveilah), the tumah is (only until) evening, then here (dead body), too, the tumah should be (only until) evening? Would you say that? Where touching confers seven-day tumah (i.e., with a dead body), carrying confers seven-day tumah. Where touching confers (until) evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah), carrying confers (until) evening tumah. R. Meir says: This is not needed (for the derivation). It is written (Bamidbar 31:19) "Whoever has killed a man, etc." Is Scripture speaking of (one who kills him with) something which is susceptible of uncleanliness or even of one who shot him with an arrow and killed him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Whoever killed a man or whoever has touched a slain one." The killer is being equated with the toucher. Just as the toucher (becomes tamei) by connection (with the object), so, the killer, by connection.

(Bamidbar 31:24) "And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean": What is the intent of this? Since we are speaking of one slain by the sword, Scripture comes to teach us that the sword and one who touches it is tamei for seven days. Whence do we derive (the same for transfer of tumah from) vessels (i.e., appurtenances) to man to vessels (appurtenances)? From "And you shall wash your garments." "and then you shall come to the camp." Just as here, (without washing of garments and sprinkling) he is forbidden to enter the camp (of the Shechinah), so, there (vis-à-vis the red heifer, Vayikra 19:19) he is forbidden to enter the camp; and just as there, until the evening, so, here, until the evening.