Chapter 14 - Text Notes
1 As it is said: "On the day of his
purification." Sifra Metzoro, par. 1, 3.
2 The Israelite
camp in the wilderness was made of three concentric encampments: one
for the Israelites, one for the tribe of Levi, and one for the
Tabernacle; see 13, 46 above. First, in cases of doubt, the possible {Hebrew Ref} is confined to his house; once he is declared unclean, he is
quarantined beyond the encampment.
3 That is, an animal
which has a fatal organic defect which will cause it to die within a
year or less.
4 Since {Hebrew Ref} can refer either to
ritual impurity or kashrus, Rashi wishes to tell us that it is the
second of these meanings which is intended.
5 Speaking ill
of another person to a third person when the negative comments are
true; if false, the gossiper is guilty of {Hebrew Ref} ,
spreading false negative reports, which is still worse.
6 Arochin 16b.
7 Ibid.
8 The
word {Hebrew Ref} , "crimson," can also mean "worm."
9
Which is a pliable, low-lying plant.
10 Not a whole tree or
even a large, heavy branch. According to Mishnah Negaim 14, 6, it
should be an amoh long (18"-22," according to various
opinions) and quarter the width of a bedpost.
11 When mixed
in the water.
12 Sotah 16b. The amount has been variously
calculated, but is in the range of approximately three-and-a-third to
somewhat more than seven ounces.
13 I.e., with the cedar
stick and hyssop.
14 Sifra Metzoro', per. 1, 6. Since the bird left the
category of purifying objects which are taken as a unit, it must be
returned to the general rule by an explicit mention in the verse, which
is what is done here. This is an application of the eleventh middah
,the midrashic principle of Rabbi Yishma'el, that anything which
departs from its general rule to be included under a different rule
must be explicitly returned to its original rule by the Torah.
See verse 13 below for another example of this rule.
15
Ibid.
16 The verse continues: "[the hair of] his head, his
beard and his eyebrows; he shall shave off all his hair."
17
I.e., those hairy parts of the body which are not usually covered, as
specified in the verse---the hair of head, beard and eyebrows. The {Hebrew Ref} of {Hebrew Ref} , sixth of the principles of
midrashic interpretation listed by Rabbi Yishma'el, requires that in
this case, the general statement must conform to the characteristics of
the particular details listed between the general statements in the
verse. In this case, this limits "all the hair" to that which is
close together ("a collection") and on exposed parts of the body.
18 Menochos 89a; this is so even though other sin and guilt
offerings do not need to be accompanied by drink offerings; see verse
22. On the rules of drink offerings, see Bemidbar 15.
19
See verse 16.
20 See verse 17.
21 Mishnah Kelim 1, 8.
22 That is, he has not
yet brought his sin-offering, even though he has immersed and gone
through the purification ritual. The Nicanor Gate in the Second Temple
led from the large outer court to the inner court of Israelites, and
beyond that, the court of kohanim. The outer court was the place
in which many ancillary activities necessary for the Temple service
were accomplished (such as cleaning wood for the altar, etc., storing
the garments of most kohanim), and offices were located, but in
which no part of the Temple service proper were performed. The
almost-purified {Hebrew Ref} was allowed into the women's court,
but not beyond. Nevertheless, though he is not permitted into the court
of Israelites, he is permitted up the steps to the Nicanor Gate, and
this fulfills the requirement that he be "before Ad-noy," since it is
beyond the outer court. He then sticks his hands though the gate into
the airspace of the Israelite court, which, though ordinarily forbidden
for "one lacking atonement," is permitted in this instance because
that is the need of the mitzvah (G.A.).
23 The verb {Hebrew Ref} may mean either "bring" or "offer." Clearly, in this
case it refers to the first, since it has not yet been slaughtered!
(M., L.B.).
24 Since the slaughtering is not mentioned
until verse 13; Menochos 62a.
25 To be placed on the
thumbs, etc. ibid. 61a.
26 7, 2 above.
27 And not on the north side
of the altar.
28 Both in this verse and similarly in 7, 3.
29 Sifra Metzoro', par. 3, 8. This is then subject to the
eleventh middoh, midrashic principle of Rabbi Yishma'el, that
anything which departs from its general rule to be included under a
different rule must be explicitly returned to its original rule
by the Torah. In this case, this guilt-offering has a requirement
different from others of its class of guilt-offerings, namely "being
placed," the Torah must explicitly indicate that its place of
slaughter is unchanged, and this it does in this verse.
30 That is, since in this respect it is unlike all other
guilt-offerings, we might think that it is dissimilar in other respects
as well, as Rashi proceeds to explain.
31 Once again, the
eleventh {Hebrew Ref} , midrashic principle of Rabbi Yishma'el, is
used. Anything which departs from its general rule to be included under
a different rule must be explicitly returned to its original
rule by the Torah.
32 Whatever pertains to the kohein
is required to have its blood sprinkled on the altar and its
entrails burnt (G.A.).
33 Sifra Metzoro', per. 3, 1. The
Mishnah continues: "The verse says, 'This is the teaching of the
guilt-offering, it is of the most holy [of sacrifices], etc...and its
blood shall he sprinkle on the altar all around' [see 7,2]---to include
all the guilt-offerings and [in particular] the guilt-offering of the
{Hebrew Ref} , that the blood must be placed below." That is, the
blood for this guilt-offering must be placed below the red line on the
altar, as other guilt-offerings, with "a double-placement which is
four;" its blood is placed all around the altar by being placed on two
diagonal sides of the base so that it shows on all four sides. The word
{Hebrew Ref} , "teaching of," is inclusionary,and so it comes to
include this rule, that the blood of a {Hebrew Ref} guilt-offering
is placed below the line, as are other guilt-offerings; see 7, 1
above (G.A.).
34 See Rashi on Shemos 29, 22.
35 Sifra Metzoro', per. 3, 9. The innermost part of the
Temple.
36 That accompanies any burnt-offering or peace-offering;
see Bemidbar 15.
37 The "one" modifying the word "lamb"
is not difficult,because the Torah wishes to emphasize the difference
between the rich man's sacrifice and that of the poor {Hebrew Ref} .
However, Rashi is concerned with the apparently unnecessary "one"
modifying the word "tenth" in the next part of the verse. The point
is to emphasize that while the poor {Hebrew Ref} brings only one
lamb and correspondingly one tenth for the drink offering, his offering
is equal to that of the rich man as far as the log of
oil is concerned, as the oil's placement proves (M.).
38
Since it is given in Bemidbar 15, 4.
39 Just as the Torah counted seven days from this time to
the time of the shaving (verse 7, 8), so too the eighth day is counted
from the same starting point (G.A.).
40 Because the verse says, "on the place of the
blood," even if the blood is no longer there; otherwise, the word
would be superfluous (M.).
41 I.e., the fact that the oil
has been put in its proper place; Sifra Metzoro', per. 3, 10.
42 Vayikro Rabbo 17.
43 For deciding these
matters is a perogative of the kohanim.
44 Such as metal or wooden vessels.
45
Literally, "in the days of his uncleanness."
46 Sifra
Metzoro', par. 5, 10. This demonstrates the Torah's concern not to
cause unnecessary loss to any Jew.
47 Ibid. As the end of
the verse describes them, "and they appear to be lower than the
[surface] of the wall."
48 Devorim 25, 9.
49 Sifra Metzoro', per. 4,
4. This is against the general rule that earth cannot acquire impurity
(Niddah 58a); nevertheless, here the verse lays down this rule that so
long as the stones are there,the place is impure (G.A.).
50
Literally, "in the house." Rashi is concerned that we not take this
word literally.
51 And not all the inside of the house, for if that were
so, the verse would have stated, "and he should scrape the entire
house"(G.A.).
52 In this verse.
53 The
pi'el, which expressed intense or causitive action, e.g., {Hebrew Ref} , "to break," while {Hebrew Ref} means "to shatter," or {Hebrew Ref} , "to become pure," {Hebrew Ref} , "to purify."
54
The house.
55 Verse 39 above.
56 Our verse.
57 Sifra Metzoro', par. 7, 6.
58 In 13, 51
above.
59 Verse 45.
60 Verse 43.
61
Verse 44.
62 I.e., it does not spread.
63 Of
confinement.
64 That is, here its concern is precisely with this case,
and not the case it seems to be discussing, that of an eruption which
returns after the stones have been removed and the house has been
replastered. Rather, Rashi insists, following the Sifra, this case is
really one which is not discussed elsewhere in this section, one in
which the eruption remained unchanged during the first week of
confinement. Ramban objects strongly to this rearrangement of verses,
but suggests in the end that Rashi is merely following Sifra's
midrashic interpretation, which is triggered by a series of {Hebrew Ref} , which as we know were handed down from Sinai. Thus, these
verses expound the law of two or even, as we shall see, three,
different cases. As B.Y. points out, the basic case with which this
parashoh deals is the simple case of an eruption which lasts a
week, at which time the kohein notes that it has spread, and the
affected stones are removed, as set forth in verses 40--42. If the
eruption returns after this, the house must be dismantled (verses
43--45). By means of {Hebrew Ref} , this basic case is expanded
to cover other possibilities, as Rashi explains.
65 Verse
45.
66 Verse 39.
67 Verse 44.
68
Literally, "this."
69 Now Rashi explains the second case
which is not explicitly set forth in these verses---the case in which
the eruption remained unchanged (did not spread) during the first
two weeks. What is done in that case?
70 Verse 44.
71 Verse 48.
72 As
Rashi explained above.
73 Verse 44.
74 Verse
48.
75 During either week.
76 Verse 48.
77
But here the eruption has not spread, but it has not disappeared.
78 Verse 44.
79 Verse 48.
80 As the
Talmud in Yoma 2b points out, though a {Hebrew Ref} usually
requires the exact wording, when such is not available, a near
equivalent is used. The reason for this is that all {Hebrew Ref}
were handed down from Sinai, both as regards which words were to be
used for this purpose, and what rule was to be derived from them. In
some cases, however, our Sages knew the result but not the exact words;
in reconstructing the midrashic interpretation, they had recourse to
wording which was not exactly similar. Alternately, they may have had a
tradition that these words constituted a {Hebrew Ref} even
though they were not identical.
81 The {Hebrew Ref} continues: "he removes [the
affected stones], scrapes, plasters and gives it another week."
82
I.e., it does not have to return in larger size than before;the
mere return is sufficient to make the house unclean.
83
Verse 43.
84 Verse 45.
85 Verse 46.
86
Verse 47.
87 Verse 44.
88 Verse 44, the verse
which according to Rashi is out of order.
89 See Sifra Metzoro', par. 7--8. After three
weeks---actually,19 days, since each week begins and ends on the same
day, either the affected stones have been removed and the eruption does
not return, or the house has been dismantled. The case is thus closed.
90 For since it has been scraped, and the stones removed,
the house in not unclean, but merely closed up for later inspection;
thus, it does not cause uncleanness for anyone who enters it (L.B.).
91 And is about to be dismantled. Do we say in that case
that anyone who enters is not unclean?
92 And during these
days the house is definitely unclean, since it has been so declared
(K.M., D.H.).
93 Verse 47 specifies that anyone who lies
down in the house or eats therein must "wash his clothes"---which
halachically refers to the person's immersion, but also hints that the
clothes he was wearing when he lay down or ate also become ritually
unclean. Thus, since that stipulation is not made here, regarding a
person who merely enters the house, we learn that his clothes
are not unclean in that case (L.B.).
94 Now calculated at
about 9 minutes. "Half a loaf" is an exact measure, a third of a {Hebrew Ref} , as M. points out; see Tosefta Nego'im 7, The reason for the
Torah's use of this measure here, rather than the more common {Hebrew Ref} , or "olive's-bulk," is because here we are dealing with a
measure of time rather than volume (G.A.).
95 Verse
47. This indicates that the amount of time allowed before the person
eating or lying down in the house becomes impure is connected with the
act of eating, viz., the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf, a
standard measure of time in Halachah.
96 Verse 47. This
interpretation, which merely restates what its in the verse, sets the
stage for the next interpretation.
97 Twice.
98 Of one who does not eat or lay
down, but merely stays in the house.
99 Sifra Metzoro',
per. 8, 7--8.
100 Rashi now begins to explain verse by verse
the implications of his long analysis adjacent to verse 44.
101
Verse 48.
102 But here though the eruption has not spread,
it has not disappeared.
103 Our verse.
104 Again from our verse, since
Rashi is methodically working through the verse, explaining it
according to the Sifra, as explained above.
105 Since the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to
a "pure day" and an impure one, since days cannot contract ritual
impurity; thus, the {Hebrew Ref} of {Hebrew Ref} must mean "in
regard to" (M.).
Chapter 15 - Text Notes
106 From his mouth, nose or ear?
107 Thus
excluding some body openings. The letter vov, which indicates
the possessive "his," is considered a limitation.
108
Various parts of the body.
109 The impurity of menstrual
flow; see verses 19--24 below.
110 See verses 25--33 below.
{Hebrew Ref} is more severe because it can lead to the requirement
to bring a sacrifice, which is not the case with {Hebrew Ref} .
111 The impurity caused by a nocturnal discharge, which requires
immersion and a wait until the night for him to become ritually clean;
see verse 16.
112 Sifra Zovim, par. 1, 13.
113 {Hebrew Ref} ; but in Niddoh 35b the reading is {Hebrew Ref} ,
"watery."
114 While, as noted above and Niddoh 35b, the
discharge of a zov is watery. While {Hebrew Ref} is often
translated as gonorrhea, if it is, it is not the disease now known by
that name, which has spread only during the last four centuries.
115 Verse 2.
116 Immediately after the mention
of the second discharge.
117 Verse 2, interpreted
midrashically. Each occurence of the root {Hebrew Ref} refers to one
"sighting" of fluid discharged; after two of them the zov is
considered unclean.
118 Verse 3.
119 Immediately
after mention of the third discharge.
120 Verse 3
interpreted midrashically to show that impurity is caused by three
"sightings" as well. Rashi proceeds to explain the difference between
these two forms of impurity.
121 Of varying degrees; with
one sighting he or she causes impurity to another person only by touch,
while after the second sighting the means of passing on the impurity
increase: touch,carrying, sitting, lying down---and seven clean days,
days without a discharge, must be counted.
122 Niddoh 43b;
Megilloh 8b; with the third sighting, a sacrifice must be brought as
well, as Rashi notes and as described below.
123 That is for sleeping.
124 The form {Hebrew Ref} , which may mean "he will lie" may also mean "he customarily
lies," and it is in this sense that the Midrash takes it.
125
As when, for example, he is lying on a door and a carpenter needs it
for his work.
126 Shabbos 59a.
127 The bed upon
which a zov sits.
128 Literally, "a Father of
Uncleanness," like the zov himself.
129 Uncleanness
transmitted by touch.
130 Literally, "a Child of
Uncleanness."
131 Sifra Zovim, par. 2, 1--2.
132 And these vessels thus intervene between the one who
sits on the topmost vessel and the bottom vessel on which the zov
himself sat.
133 Even in this case, where the contact
with the vessel on which the zov sat is so indirect, the
virulence of the uncleanness is so great that the impurity is
transmitted through such a space.
134 See Niddoh 55b. This
is derived from the fact that the verse uses the preposition {Hebrew Ref} , "in" rather than on; the assumption is that the spit rested
on the ritually clean person's hand, and he or she carried it rather
than touching it (L.B.).
135 Literally, "which [people]
call."
136 Since it is part of the saddle equippage.
137 Eruvin 27a.
138 Upon which the zov
sat. The person who touches it does not require that his clothing be
washed.
139 Since uncleanness transmitted by a bed does
affect the clothes worn by the one who becomes unclean; see verse 5.
140 That is, as explained in verse 4, objects upon which he
customarily sits or rides.
141 See Sifra Zovim, per. 3, 4.
142 I.e., days without a discharge.
143 As Rashi enumerates above.
144 Such as the
inside of the mouth, ear, nose, and other body cavities, as well as the
folds between adjoining parts of the body.
145 The Mishnah
in Sifra Zovim, par. 3, 1--2 states: Perhaps [it is unclean] even if he
touches it from the outside? Is it not an argument ad minori (a
{Hebrew Ref} ): If the uncleanness caused by a dead body, which
is most severe, cannot cause uncleanness to earthenware vessels from
the outside [by touch], there is no question that the zov, who
[causes] less severe [uncleanness], should not cause uncleanness to
earthenware vessels from the outside. No, if you argue [thusly] with
regard to a dead body, [whose uncleanness] does not affect a bed and
sitting vessel, will you argue [thusly] in regard to a zov, who
does? Since he does affect a bed and sitting vessel, he should cause
uncleanness to earthenware vessels from the outside! The verse says:
"which he touches," and elsewhere it says:"which is cooked in it"
(6:21)---just as "in it" mentioned in the latter [refers] to the
inside, so too here it refers to [touch from] the inside. (2) And since
we have learnt that [earthware vessels] become unclean only from the
inside, why does the verse say: "which touches it"? [This] refers to
touch which is [as affecting] all of it; say: this when one causes it
to move [=the uncleanness due to {Hebrew Ref} ].
146 Ibid. Even though he is not formally clean, since he
has not been purified, he is considered "clean" in a sense, since the
discharge which rendered him unclean has ceased (G.A.).
147
One day after another (Sifra Zovim, per.5, 6). According to G.A., this
is derived from the seemingly superfluous word {Hebrew Ref} ,
"for his purification," which implies one, continuous purification
period. L.B. notes that Rashi's comment concentrates on the zov
's being clear of a discharge, but not a seminal emission, which only
interrupts, but does not cancel, the seven-day count.
148 Of G-d's.
149 Niddoh 41a.
150
Vayikro 20, 18 below.
151 Literally, "the source."
152
Thus, the word "in her flesh" in the next part of the verse is
equivalent to "the source of her blood."
153 Niddoh 19a.
154 Iyyov 18, 18.
155 Thus, the word {Hebrew Ref} is related to {Hebrew Ref} , "to drive away." A menstruant
woman is called a {Hebrew Ref} because contact with her is
forbidden.
156 She is still considered menstrually impure;
Sifra Metzoro',par. 4, 5.
157 The first part of our verse deals with the rule
governing a bed which is laid upon, the next part ("or a vessel")
deals with a saddle which is ridden and therefore causes uncleanness to
clothes; and finally, the phrase "when touching it"deals with a
person touching a saddle without sitting or riding on it, which does
not affect his clothes (G.A.).
158 See previous note.
159
The source of this rule is Mishnah Kelim 23, 3,and see Rashi to
verse 10 above.
160 That is, to what extent will he carry her impurity?
161 Sifra Zovim, per. 7, 3, Niddoh 33a.
162 Sifra
Zovim, par. 5, 9. The minimum number for the plural "days" is two;
adding the adjective "many" increases this to "three."
163
Which requires, according to Torah law, only a count of seven days from
the onset, if the flow ceases within that time.
164 Without
a discharge.
165 The number is derived as follows. From the phrase
"many days" we know that the discharge must continue for at least
three days, and from the phrase "after her menstrual cycle" we know
that this three day period begins a day after the end of menstruation
(see Rashi above). This gives us four days, to which we add the seven
clean days necessary for the zivoh period to end. During the
next eleven days, if she sees a discharge, she becomes not a {Hebrew Ref} , but a {Hebrew Ref} ; the first day this happens she is termed
a {Hebrew Ref} . If the discharge ceases by sunrise the next
morning, she may immerse but is not regarded as ritually clean until
the day passes; during that day she is termed "one who keeps watch day
by day" ( {Hebrew Ref} ). If the discharge returns she
is again a {Hebrew Ref} for that day and a {Hebrew Ref} for the next; if the discharge returns for a third time on
the third day, she then becomes a {Hebrew Ref} , and must count
seven clean days, beginning the day after the flow ceases. After the
seventh day she immerses, and brings a sacrifice on the eighth day.
166 Yeshayoh 1, 4.
167 Bereishis 49, 26.
168
Being cut off, dying at age fifty to sixty without surviving
descendants.
Return to Main Search Form
Sources