Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Numbers 31:19/רמב"ן על במדבר ל״א:י״ט

אכֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּהוֹרְגוֹ בְּדָבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וְלִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַכְּלִי מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּחִבּוּרֵי הַמֵּת כְּאִלּוּ נָגַע בַּמֵּת עַצְמוֹ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ זָרַק בּוֹ חֵץ וַהֲרָגוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכֹל נוֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל״. הִקִּישׁ הוֹרֵג לְנוֹגֵעַ - מַה נוֹגֵעַ עַל יְדֵי חִבּוּרוֹ, אַף הוֹרֵג עַל יְדֵי חִבּוּרוֹ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר ל״א:י״ט). וְלֹא נִתְכַּוְּנוּ דְּבָרָיו אֶצְלִי, שֶׁאִם הָרַג בְּדָבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה שֶׁל כְּלֵי שֶׁטֶף, אֵין הָאָדָם מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה וְלֹא צָרִיךְ הַזָּאָה, לְפִי שֶׁהַכְּלִי אַב טֻמְאָה וְהָאָדָם שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִמֶּנּוּ רִאשׁוֹן. וְאִם בִּכְלִי בַּרְזֶל, כְּבָר לָמַדְנוּ (פסחים יד) לְחֶרֶב שֶׁהוּא כְּחָלָל לְהִטָּמֵא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. וְאִם סָבַר הָרַב שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּגַע בַּכְּלִי בְּעוֹד שֶׁהוּא מְחֻבָּר בַּמֵּת יְטַמֵּא אוֹתוֹ כַּמֵּת עַצְמוֹ טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה - טֻמְאָה בְּחִבּוּרִין מִדְּרַבָּנָן הִיא בְּחִבּוּרֵי כֵּלִים בַּמֵּת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בְּמַסֶּכֶת נְזִירוּת בְּפֶרֶק שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין (מב). וּלְשׁוֹנָם בְּסִפְרֵי כָּךְ הוּא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר בְּהוֹרְגוֹ בְּדָבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּהֶסֵּט. אוֹ יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ זָרַק בּוֹ חֵץ וַהֲרָגוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכוּ'. וּפֵרוּשָׁהּ שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר לִלְמֹד מִכָּאן שֶׁהַמֵּת מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא, וְאִם הֲרָגוֹ בְּמַקֵּל יָד אוֹ בְּרוֹמַח, אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בּוֹ בַּרְזֶל, וּנְשָׂאוֹ בָּהֶם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּת - מְטַמֵּא אוֹתוֹ בְּמַשָּׂא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן בְּ״דָבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה״ לִכְלִי קִבּוּל, אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁהָאָדָם מְקַבֵּל בּוֹ טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת עַצְמוֹ, כְּגוֹן הַמַּשָּׂא. וְרֵישָׁא דִּבְרַיְתָא הָתָם: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּהֶסֵּט? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר - מַה נְבֵלָה קַלָּה הֲרֵי הִיא מְטַמְּאָה בְּהֶסֵּט, מֵת חָמוּר לֹא דִּין הוּא שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּהֶסֵּט? אִי מַה לְהַלָּן טֻמְאַת עֶרֶב, אַף כָּאן טֻמְאַת עֶרֶב? אָמַרְתָּ: הֶסֵּטוֹ כְּמַגָּעוֹ - מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּגָּעוֹ טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, הֶסֵּטוֹ טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה; מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּגָּעוֹ טֻמְאַת עֶרֶב, הֶסֵּטוֹ טֻמְאַת עֶרֶב. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר וְכוּ'. וּמִכָּאן יִתְבָּרֵר פֵּרוּשָׁהּ שֶׁהִיא לָעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ: הֵבִיא תַּנָּא קַמָּא מַשָּׂא הַמֵּת מִן הַקַּל וָחֹמֶר, וַאֲפִלּוּ לְטֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ דַּיּוֹ, וֶהֱבִיאוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִן הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה, דְּאִית לֵיהּ דַּיּוֹ, וְלָא אָתֵי בְּקַל וָחֹמֶר, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּבָבָא קַמָּא בְּפֶרֶק כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל (כד):

1WHOSOEVER HATH KILLED ANY PERSON, AND WHOSOEVER HATH TOUCHED ANY SLAIN, [PURIFY YOURSELVES ON THE THIRD DAY AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY]. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible of impurity, and the verse [here] teaches you that the object [i.e., the weapon] renders the person impure through [indirect] contact with the corpse as if he had touched the corpse itself.⁸², Note 40. I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says, and whosoever hath killed any person [and whosoever hath touched any slain].⁸³ Thus it compares a person who kills to a person who touches. Just as he who touches [is rendered impure] by virtue of that contact [with the corpse], so is the person who kills [rendered impure] by virtue of his contact [with the corpse, effected through the weapon he holds in his hand, which contact is non-existent when he shoots an arrow and kills him].” Thus far is the language of Rashi.But his words are not clear to me. For if he killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity but can be [made pure] by immersion,⁸⁴ then the person touching it does not contract the seven-day period of impurity, nor does he require the sprinkling [of the waters of purification], since the object [with which he killed] becomes “a father of impurity,”⁸⁵, Note 40, for an explanation of this subject. and the person who becomes impure through it, becomes a “first degree of impurity” [who is only required to immerse himself in a ritual pool and he becomes pure the evening of that same day; and since the verse here requires a seven-day period of impurity, it cannot be referring to such a case]. And if [he killed him] with a metal instrument, we have already been taught⁸⁶ that a sword [or any metal object with which a person is killed] is exactly the same degree of impurity as the dead person himself,⁸², Note 40. and therefore conveys a seven-days’ impurity [to anyone who touches it, so there is no need for our verse to repeat this principle]. And if the Rabbi [Rashi] is of the opinion that since he [the killer] touched the instrument whilst it was itself still in contact with the corpse [then even if it was not a metal object] it renders him impure for a seven-day period just as [if he had touched] the corpse itself — such [conveyance of a stricter degree of] impurity through [indirect] contact is only a law of the Rabbis when the contact is that of objects with a corpse, as is explained in Tractate Neziruth, Chapter Shloshah Minim.⁸⁷ verses here cannot be speaking of such a case. Hence Rashi’s comment “that the verse [here] teaches you that the object renders the person impure through contact etc.” cannot be the correct explanation of this verse.But the language of the Rabbis in the Sifre is as follows:⁸⁸ 127. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity, and [teaches us that] it conveys impurity by moving [the corpse, as will be explained further on]. Or I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says etc.”⁸⁹. Thus it compares etc. “[as quoted by Ramban from Rashi’s commentary]. And the meaning of [this Sifre] is that Rabbi Meir came to deduce from here [the principle] that a human corpse conveys impurity when carried. Thus if he killed him with a walking-stick or a spear, even if it did not consist of metal, and he was “carried,” [i.e., the slain person was moved] through them,⁹⁰ — “the impurity caused by shaking” an impure object [such as n’veilah, or a human corpse] so as to move it from its place. Such movement, even if done in an indirect manner, is sufficient to convey impurity, just as if it had been carried directly. at the time of death, the corpse conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration to the person who “carried” [i.e., moved] it. And when [using the phrase] “an object which is susceptible to impurity,” Rabbi Meir was not referring to a vessel which forms a receptacle [and is therefore susceptible to impurity] but to an object through which the person receives impurity [directly] from the corpse itself,⁹¹ forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. such as by “carrying” [i.e., moving it]. And the beginning of this Beraitha there [in the Sifre] states as follows:⁸⁸ 127. “Whence do we know that it [a corpse] conveys impurity by shaking it? You make use of a kal vachomer:⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. If a dead animal that conveys a non-stringent form of impurity [since it conveys impurity only until the evening of the same day] nonetheless conveys impurity by being moved, is it not logical that a human corpse that conveys a stringent form of impurity [i.e., an impurity of seven-days’ duration] should convey impurity by being moved! But if so [you might argue] that just as there, the impurity conveyed [by moving the dead animal] is only until the evening, so here also [in the case of the human corpse], the impurity conveyed [by moving or shaking it] is only until the evening [of that day ! You must say that this cannot be so. Rather,] you must say that the law of moving it is the same as touching it. Where touching [the source of impurity] renders one impure for a seven-days’ duration [as does touching a corpse], so also does moving it render one impure for a seven-days’ duration, and where touching renders one only impure until the evening [as does touching a dead animal], moving it also renders one impure only until the evening. Rabbi Meir says etc.” From here then, the meaning of the Beraitha becomes apparent, as we have explained it above:⁹¹ forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. Thus the First Sage [i.e., the anonymous Sage of the first part of the Sifre] deduced from a kal vachomer⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. the principle that carrying [or moving] a corpse [without touching it] conveys impurity even for a seven-days’ duration, because he does not adopt [the principle of] dayo,⁹³ as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. whereas Rabbi Meir derived it from this verse [before us], because since he follows the principle of dayo,⁹³ as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. therefore he cannot derive it by a kal vachomer⁹² argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. [from dead animals], as is stated in Tractate Baba Kamma, Chapter Keitzad Haregel.⁹⁴, although Rabbi Meir’s name is not specifically mentioned.

באַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם – שֶׁיְּחַטְּאוּ הַשְּׁבִי בִּגְדֵיהֶם הַנּוֹגְעִים בֶּחָלָל, וְכָל בֶּגֶד וְכָל כְּלִי עוֹר אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדָם, כְּדִין יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת הָעָם בְּבִגְדֵיהֶם וּבִכְלֵיהֶם:

2YE AND YOUR CAPTIVES. [This means that] the captives also have to purify their garments⁹⁵ Ramban therefore explains that this refers to their garments, as explained in the text. which touched the slain, and every garment and every vessel of skin⁹⁶ which were in their possession, just as was the law with regard to the Israelites, in order that they would not defile the people with their garments and their vessels.