תּלמוד אויף במדבר 19:19

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal²⁵One of the eight animals, reptile or rodent, mentioned in Lev. 11:29,30, whose carcass makes a person impure by contact. The impurity is removed by immersion in a sufficient amount of water and the following sundown. Therefore this is considered a minor impurity in contrast with the impurity induced by a corpse (or leprosy and some bodily discharges) which need elaborate ceremonies of purification. and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity²⁶A violation of the purity of the Sanctuary or its sancta can be remedied by a (variable value) sacrifice only if there had been prior awareness of the impurity but oblivion at the moment of the violation (Note 1). If the person enters the Sanctuary oblivious of his impurity but having had prior knowledge of his severe impurity, his having no knowledge of the minor impurity does not invalidate his knowledge of severe impurity; he is liable for a variable value sacrifice.. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity²⁷One must assume that he entered the Sanctuary having had knowledge but momentarily being oblivious of his minor impurity but before becoming aware of his severe impurity. Before he brought his sacrifice he became aware of the prior severe impurity. If he had not become aware, clearly he would be liable for a variable sacrifice. For the violation of the purity of the Sanctuary by his severe impurity he cannot bring a sacrifice since he had no prior awareness. Does he still have to bring the sacrifice for the minor impurity or does his inability to bring one for the severe impurity disable him from bringing the one for simple impurity? No answer is given.? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable²⁸All conditions for a variable value sacrifice are satisfied; the minor impurity which was unknown to him cannot interfere with the sacrifice for the severe violation.; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable²⁹Since he never had prior awareness of this impurity by the time he entered the Sanctuary, the basic conditions for a sacrifice are missing.. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity³⁰Since the purification from the impurity of the dead at the end also requires immersion (Num. 19:19), the latter automatically eliminates the minor impurity even if the minor impurity was not on his mind while he was immersing himself.. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.

There⁷⁷Mishnah 9:2., we have stated: “What is ‘far away’⁷⁸That a person at this place on the 14th of Nisan is not obligated to bring his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Nisan (Num. 9:13).? From Modiin and farther away, and in the same distance in every direction, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Eliezer says, from the doorstep⁷⁹Accadic askuppu. of the Temple courtyard and farther away.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only not to make him liable for extirpation⁸⁰But he will agree that anybody within commuting distance to the Temple is obligated by a positive commandment (Num.9:2) to offer the Pesaḥ.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah implies this: “Rebbi Aqiba answered him, sprinkling is a counter example, for it is a commandment.” Is it a commandment to sprinkle⁸¹The purification from the impurity of the dead is an obligation for anybody coming to the Sanctuary. If he is not going there, there is no obligation to be sprinkled on.? Explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Fourteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ⁸²This is an inexact statement. The person who was sprinkled with the water containing the ashes of the Red Cow on the 3^rd and 7^th days of his impurity and then immerses himself in a miqweh is able to enter the sanctuary and eat sancta after sundown (Num. 19:19). This means that another person has to slaughter the Pesaḥ for him; but he can then come and eat from the sacrifice in the night. Rav Hoshaia holds that one may not slaughter for a person who could not slaughter by himself; therefore he has to transfer the situation to the 13th., and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he his prevented from fulfilling the commandment. Rav Hoshaia said, explain it that his seventh day happened to be the Thirteenth which fell on a Sabbath. If it had been a weekday, one would have sprinkled on him, then the next day he would have come, slaughtered his Pesaḥ, and entered and eaten it in the evening. Because it is a Sabbath and one does not sprinkle on him, it results that he is prevented from fulfilling the commandment. It was found stated⁸³A baraita (not quoted) supports R. Eleazar against Rav Hoshaia. following the first [explanation].

“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.}”