Sifrei Bamidbar 129

¹(Bamidbar 19:18) "and a clean man shall dip (it) in the water": There must be enough water for "dipping" (three calyxes). "a man": to exclude a minor. This would exclude both a minor and a woman. It is, therefore, written "clean" — to include a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: Why is "clean" written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer must be clean (viz. Ibid. 9), how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of "clean"? Clean of all tumah. And who is he (who is not clean of all tumah)? One who immersed in the daytime. R. Akiva says: It is written here "clean," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 9), "clean." Just as (one who is) "clean" here is tamei vis-à-vis (the bringing of) a sin-offering, so, (one who is) "clean" there. "and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent." Scripture here apprises us that a tent is susceptible of tumah. Variantly: Scripture apprises us (that only those vessels require sprinkling, which were there) when the tent became tamei, (but not those which were brought in after the body was removed.) "and he shall sprinkle it … and upon him who touched a bone" — a bone the size of a barley-corn. You say this, but perhaps ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living person) is intended? (Ibid. 16) "or the bone of a man" already speaks of ever min hechai." What, then, is the intent of "and upon him who touched a bone"? A bone the size of a barley-corn. "or a slain one or a dead body or a grave": Just as all are mentioned vis-à-vis tumah (Ibid. 16), so, all are mentioned vis-à-vis sprinkling (here). ²(Bamidbar 19:19) "And the clean one shall sprinkle on the unclean one": If the clean one sprinkles upon the unclean one, he becomes unclean. These are the words of R. Akiva. The sages say: Scripture is speaking only of those things which have become unclean (as being sprinkled upon, and not of things which are clean.) "on the third day and on the seventh day": Scripture comes to teach us that one who has become tamei through a dead body requires sprinkling on the third and seventh days. You say it comes to this end, but perhaps the intent is that if he sprinkled on the third day he becomes clean on the seventh day, and if not, not? It is, therefore, written "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day." It repeats ("on the seventh day") to indicate that it is invalid otherwise (i.e., if he does not sprinkle on the seventh day.) "and he shall wash his garments and he shall bathe in water": This tells me (that he may wash his garments) only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive (that it is also permissible on) the eighth and ninth days? From "and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day," followed by "and he shall wash his garments and bathe in water and he will be clean in the evening." ³(Bamidbar 19:20) "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself": Scripture speaks of defilement of the sanctuary and its holy things, and its punishment is kareth (cutting-off). But perhaps the kareth is for (not) sprinkling? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) "and if he does not purify himself (with it) on the third day and on the seventh day, he shall not be clean." His punishment (for not purifying himself) is that he shall not be clean, and not kareth. ⁴(Bamidbar 19:21) "And it (the sprinkling of the waters) shall be for them for an everlasting statute": that it be observed throughout the generations. ⁵"And the sprinkler of the waters of sprinkling shall wash his clothing": Scripture here distinguishes between water which is sufficient for sprinkling and water which is not sufficient for sprinkling, the first rendering a man tamei to render his garments tamei; the second rendering a man tamei to render foods and drinks tamei. You say that this is the intent of the verse, but perhaps its intent is to distinguish between the sprinkler and the toucher (of the water); the sprinkler who does not touch rendering his garments unclean, and the sprinkler who touches, not rendering his garments unclean? Now does it not follow (otherwise) a fortiori, viz.: If the sprinkler who does not touch renders his garments unclean, how much more so the sprinkler who touches! — But perhaps the intent is to distinguish between the clean and the unclean? — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the clean one (who touches it) becomes unclean, how much more so, the unclean one! — But perhaps the intent is to distinguish between those who are fit (to sprinkle) and those who are unfit? — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the fit one becomes unclean, how much more so, the unfit one! You must perforce accept the first supposition — Scripture here distinguishes between water which is sufficient for sprinkling and water which is not sufficient for sprinkling, the first rendering a man tamei to render his garments tamei; the second rendering a man tamei to render foods and drinks tamei.