(Bamidbar 5:1-2) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp every leper (metzora) and everyone with a (genital discharge (zav), and everyone that is unclean by (contact with) a body (tamei meth)." Why was this section stated? (For) from (Bamidbar 19:20) "A man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, for he has defiled the sanctuary of the L-rd," we hear the punishment; but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written "Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp … (3) and they shall not make unclean their camps in which I dwell." This (3) is the exhortation that the unclean not enter the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness. "Command": The command is immediately, for present performance and for future generations. You say thus, but perhaps it is only for future performance! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "Command the children of Israel that they send … (Bamidbar 5:2) "And the children of Israel did so, sending them outside the camp" — whence we derive that the command is for immediate performance. And whence do we derive that it is (also) for future generations? From (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear olive oil … (3) … an eternal statute for your generations." — But how do we derive (the same) for all the commands in the Torah? R. Yishmael says: Since we find unqualified commands in the Torah, and one of them was qualified as being for present performance and for future generations, we derive the same for all the mitzvoth in the Torah. R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: "command" in all places connotes impulsion (to the act), as it is written (Devarim 3:28) "And command Joshua and strengthen him and fortify him" — whence we learn "We strengthen only the (internally) strengthened," and "We impel only the (internally) impelled." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: "Command" in all places entails expense, as it is written (Vayikra 24:2) "Command the children of Israel that they take to you pure olive oil," (Bamidbar 35:2) "Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance, etc." (Bamidbar 28:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread, for My fires" — whence we see that "command" in all places entails expense. Except in one; and which is that? (Bamidbar 34:2) "Command the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of Canaan, etc." — where the intent is: Impel them to the division of the land. Rebbi says: "Command" in all places is exhortation, as it is written (Bereshit 2:16-17) "And the L-rd G-d commanded (i.e., exhorted) the man, saying … but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat." (Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out of the camp": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) "Outside the camp shall you send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is "and they shall not make unclean their camps" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written "and they shall not make unclean their camps?" Because from "they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth," I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall he sit" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor. This is the source for the sages' gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). Wherever zav confers tumah, metzora (leper) confers tumah. metzora is of greater stringency (than zav) in that it confers tumah upon one who enters (a house afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra 14:46] [— wherefore a metzora is sent out of all three camps]). Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, zav confers tumah. zav is of greater stringency (than tamei meth) in that it confers tumah under an even mesama (a stone beneath which there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] [— wherefore a zav is sent out of two camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one who has immersed in the daytime [pending purification in the evening]) confers tumah, tamei meth confers tumah. tamei meth is of greater stringency (than tvul yom) in that it confers tumah upon a man (who touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22] [— wherefore a tamei meth is sent out of one camp]). Wherever one's lacking atonement (through an offering) renders (him) unfit (for eating consecrated food) tvul yom renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of greater stringency (than one's lacking atonement) in that he renders terumah unfit. "that they send out of the camp": Is this speaking of all men or only the Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) "From male until female shall you send out" — Scripture speaks of all men. R. Yoshiyah says "that they send out of the camp" connotes both adults and minors. You say both adults and minors, but perhaps the criterion (for inclusion) should be punishment, viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary defilement that only adults are punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off" — here, too, only adults are intended. It is, therefore, written "From male until female shall you send out," both adults and minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it written "From male until female shall you send out"? Because it is written "They shall send out of the camp," I might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2). Whence do I derive (the same for) all the other types of tumah? From "From male until female — any (type of tumah) that affects male or female — shall you send out." This tells me only of male and female. Whence do we derive the same for one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From (the redundant) "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of one who can be sent away (i.e., of one who can walk). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who cannot be sent away (i.e., that he must be taken by another)? From "Outside the camp shall you send them." This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) appurtenances (that have become tamei)? From "and they shall not make unclean their camps." R. Akiva says: "Outside of the camp shall you send them" connotes both men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael says: It is derived by induction, viz.: A man is subject to plague tumah and garments are subject to plague tumah. Just as a man is subject to being sent away, so, appurtenances. — No, this may be so for a man, who imparts tumah (to an object) by reclining (mishkav) or sitting (moshav [upon it]), for which reason he must be sent away — as opposed to appurtenances, which do not impart tumah in that manner! — No, this is refuted by (the instance of) stones from a leprous house, which, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav or moshav, require being sent away. Do not wonder, then, if appurtenances, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav and moshav are to be sent away. R. Yossi Haglili says "From male until female shall you send them out": Just as male and female are distinctive in being subject to becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah) require being sent away, so, all that are thus susceptible — to exclude earthenware vessels, which are not thus susceptible. (Vayikra 17:15) "and every soul that eats neveilah (carcass) or treifah (what is "torn") … he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water …" R. Yitzchak says: It is written (Ibid. 16) "And if he does not wash (his clothes) and he does not bathe his flesh (and he eats kodshim or enters the sanctuary), he shall bear his sin." For not bathing his body Scripture makes him liable to kareth ("cutting-off'). You say, it is for not bathing his body, but perhaps it is for not washing his clothes! — Can you say this? If for the more stringent tumath meth he is not punished (with kareth) for not washing his clothes, how much more so is he not punished for not washing his clothes for the less stringent eating of carcass! If so, what is the intent of "And if he does not wash his clothes"? To serve as an exhortation (against not washing them). "Outside of the camp shall you send them": What is the intent of this (after "They shall send out of the camp")? From "They shall send out of the camp," I might think the intent is (only) that they not touch the ark or its bearers, but they should be assigned a place for themselves (inside the camp). It is, therefore, written "Outside of the camp shall you send them": "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — whence (i.e., from the three-fold repetition of "camp") they stated: There were three camps: the Israelite camp, the Levite camp, and the camp of the Shechinah. From the entrance to Jerusalem until the Temple mount — the Israelite camp. From the entrance to the Temple mount until the azarah (the Temple courtyard) — the Levite camp. From the entrance to the azarah and inwards — the camp of the Shechinah. (Ibid. 3) "in whose midst I dwell": Beloved are Israel, who, even when they are tamei, the Shechinah is among them, as it is written (Vayikra 16:16) "who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanliness," and (Bamidbar) 35:34) "And you shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in which I dwell, for I, the L-rd, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel (even when they are unclean)." (Ibid. 5:4) "And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp": R. Yossi Haglili says: Come and see how great is the power of transgression. For before they stretched forth their hands to transgress (with the golden calf), there were no zavim or lepers among them, and after they did so, there were zavim and lepers among them. In the course (of our learning) we learned that these three things (zavim, lepers, and tamei meth) occurred on the same day (the day that they made the golden calf). R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Come and see how great is the power of transgression. For before they stretched forth their hands to transgress, what is written of them? (Shemot 24:17) "and the sight of the glory of the L-rd was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel" — They did not fear and they did not tremble. After they stretched forth their hands to transgress, what is written of them? (Ibid. 34:30) "And Aaron and all of Israel saw Moses, and, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him." "And the children of Israel did so": This is to declare the praise of Israel, that just as Moses told them, thus did they do. What is the intent of (the additional) "As the L-rd spoke to Moses, so did the children of Israel do"? To teach that the unclean ones themselves, (who were sent out), did not protest.
Sifrei Bamidbar 1
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.