ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף במדבר 19:20

וישלחו מן המחנה, “that they shall put outside the encampment, etc.” we have heard the commandment; where do we find the penalty for disregarding this commandment? Answer: this is to be found in Numbers 19,20: ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא וגו' ״, “and anyone who has become ritually defiled and does not purify himself, etc.”

To one who eats. As it is written nearby: “and she shall not come into the Sanctuary,” and the one who enters the Sanctuary in impurity is liable koreis (excision), as it is written at the beginning of Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:20). [Thus,] the Gemora (Yevamos 75a) makes a comparison between “she shall not touch anything holy” and one who enters the Sanctuary, just as one who enters the Sanctuary involves koreis, so too, when it is written, “she shall not touch anything holy,” it refers to koreis. If so, perforce we must say that “she shall not touch” is a warning to one who eats, for one who eats sacrifices in the state of impurity is liable [koreis. Regarding terumoh, though, which Rashi derives above from “anything holy,” the punishment is] death [at the hands of Heaven], as it is written (22:9): “And die because of it for having profaned.” However, one who touches sacrifices in the state of impurity is not liable koreis [and the reason the verse teaches eating with an expression of ‘touching’ is to let us know that one who is forbidden to eat sacrifices may also not touch them]. Furthermore, we can say that Rashi [knows that ‘touch’ refers to eating from that which he] explains nearby “anything holy” — “to include [terumoh].” Perforce, he did not intend to explain the verse, for the phrase “anything holy” is written before “she shall not touch,” so why does Rashi reverse the order? Rather, this refers to what precedes his explanation on “anything holy.” And this is its explanation: “She shall not touch” — “A warning to one who eats,” but how do we know it is a warning to one who eats? Thus, he explains: Because “anything holy” includes terumoh, and “she shall not touch” also refers to it. If so, we cannot say “she shall not touch” is a warning for actual touching, since it is permissible to touch terumoh immediately after immersing [in a mikveh], and she immersed immediately after the seven days. A טבול יום (one who immersed and is waiting for sunset) is permitted to touch terumoh. Rather, [it must be] a warning for one who eats. This raises a difficulty: In the verse it is written קדש (holy) and not terumoh! Upon this Rashi answers: The proof is from that which it is written: “until the days of her purity are completed,” which is applicable only to terumoh, “for this one is [considered] as one who has immersed [in a mikveh but whose purification is concluded only] after a long day, [thus,] the expression “days” is applicable to her. However, sacrifices cannot be eaten until one brings his [sacrifice of] atonement, and it does not depend on days alone. [Thus,] although the [warning] itself comes for one who eats sacrifices, nevertheless, the exclusion from “anything” comes to prohibit eating terumoh (Nachalas Yaakov).

To the Heichal. This does not refer specifically to the Mishkon, but rather the same applies to the Beis HaMikdosh, as it is written in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:13): “He has defiled the Mishkon of Adonoy,” and afterwards it is written (v. 20): “For he has defiled the Mikdosh of Adonoy.” Our Sages derived from this (Shavuos 16b): If it says Mishkon, why does it say Mikdosh? And if it says Mikdosh, why does it say Mishkon? Rather, it applies the laws of this to that, and of that to this. Perforce, there is no difference between them, but only that Scripture uses the term Mishkon because it was in existence at that time. [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not explain this above (1:3) with regard to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting? [The answer is:] Because there it refers to the courtyard, and the term “courtyard” applies equally to the Mishkon and the eternal house [Mikdosh]. However, the term “Tent of Meeting” is applicable only to the Mishkon, and the holiness of the Mishkon was exchanged for the holiness of the eternal house, for this one’s holiness was temporary and this one’s holiness is eternal, [thus, it was necessary to explain that although this is so, the mitzvah of ‘bringing’ applies to them both].