Sifrei Bamidbar 127

¹(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. ²(Bamidbar 19:16) "or the bone of a man": This refers to a limb (cut off) from a living person. — But perhaps it refers to a bone the size of a barley-corn? "and upon him who touched a bone" already speaks of a bone the size of a barley-corn. How, then, are we to understand "or the bone of a man"? As referring to a limb (cut off) from a living person. And two "bones" are being spoken of, viz.: "or the bone of a man" — a limb (cut off) from a living person "and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn. ³"or a dead body or the bone of a man": Just as a dead body — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, a limb (cut off) from a living person, flesh, sinew, and bones, as in his natural state. ⁴"or a grave": This refers to a closed grave (i.e., one in which there is less than a tefach between the body and the lid). — But perhaps it refers to an open grave? Would you say that? It follows (otherwise), viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not confer tumah on all of its sides when it is open, how much more so, a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah! — But in that case, why do we not say that just as an open tent confers ("until) evening" tumah (when touched from the back), so, here, an open grave confers ("until) evening" tumah? Would you say that? Whence do we derive this for a tent? From an a fortiori argument (as above), and would you now come to derive something which is itself derived elsewhere? A derivation from a derivation? ⁵(Bamidbar 19:17) "And they shall take for the unclean one from the earth of the burning (of the heifer) for cleansing." R. Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ashes? Why does Scripture depart from its usual meaning? To formulate an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here "earth," and, elsewhere, "earth," (Bamidbar 5:17). "Just as there, "earth" on the water, so, here, "earth" on the water. And just as there, if the (taking of the) earth preceded the (taking of the) water, it is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the ashes) changed its appearance (to that of earth) it is (still) valid.