What are the implications of "Kol ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh Adam"?
Chulin, 72a: It implies that a fetus that dies inside the mother's womb, is Metamei (be'Ohel). 1
Chulin, 72a: It implies that a Reve'is Dam of a Meis is Metamei (like the Meis) - since the Torah refers to a Revi'is as 'Nefesh'. 2
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluus) words "asher Yamus"?
Sifri: To teach us that a person is not Metamei until he actually dies - to preclude a Goseis. 1
See Torah Temimah Naso, 6:7 note 59.
What happens to a Tamei Meis who is not sprinkled with the ashes on the third day of his Tum'ah?
Rashi (in Kidushin 62a), B'chor Shor and Chizkuni: On whichever day he is sprinkled the first time, he must receive the second sprinkling four days later. 1
Rambam (Hilchos Parah Adumah 11:2): He may receive the latter sprinkling on day seven, or any day afterwards.
Aderes Eliyahu (also in Chumash ha'Gra) says that it does not help to receive Haza'ah: afterwards - on days four and eight. Even though Pasuk 12 implies like this "ve'Im Lo? Lo Yit'har", this is astounding. The Chachamim decreed not to sprinkle on Shabbos (Eruvin 67b). If so, one who became Tamei on Sunday or Thursday can never become Tahor! Perhaps if he is exposed to Tum'as Mes again, he can receive Haza'ah on days three and seven from the latter Tum'ah. However, a Kohen or Nazir may not do so! This requires investigation. (PF)
"Kol ha?Noge?a be?Meis be?Nefeh ha?Adam". What if one carries a Meis (Masa) without touching it?
Ramban (on Pasuk 14 citing the Sifri): A Meis is also Metamei be'Masa (via carrying) 1 - which we learn from Tum'as Neveilah via a Kal va'Chomer. 2
What are the implications of "be'Nefesh ha'Adam"?
Rashi: a. It precludes the Neveilah of a dead animal, which is Metamei those who touch it, but does not require Haza'ah 1 with the Eifer ha'Parah, 2 and b. to include a Revi'is ha'Dam. 3
Riva (citing R"M): It precludes a fetus with a human form in an animal's womb 4 . It is Metamei for seven days, but does not obligate Haza'ah.
Even though Misah was decreed on the animals at the same time as it was decreed on Adam - and the Parah Adumah comes to atone for Misah.
R. Tam (in Tosfos Yevamos 61b): Even R. Shimon, who says that Nochrim have no Tum'as Ohel, for they are not called Adam, agrees that they are included in "ha'Adam."
Which he probably learns from the word "be'Nefesh". See also Targum Yonasan.
The Gemara in Nidah 23b discusses this.
Why does the Torah not explicitly forbid the Tamei Meis to enter the Mishkan?
What is "Tamei Yih'yeh" coming to include?
Makos, 8a: It includes in the Chiyuv Kareis (in Pasuk 20) someone who became Tamei via a Meis Mitzvah, who is obligated to render himself Tamei - in spite of the word "ve'Ish asher Yitmas" mentioned there, which generally implies that it is voluntary. 1
See Torah Temimah, citing Makos, ibid., and note 122.
What are the connotations of "Od Tum'aso bo"?
Ramban and Rashbam: It teaches us that, even after having Toveled, as long as the Tamei Meis has not been sprinkled with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, his Tum'ah remains in full force. 1
Moshav Zekenim #1: Do not say that through seven clean days (without exposure to Tum'as Meis), even though he may not enter the Mishkan, he is no longer Metamei other things. Rather, he is still fully Tamei.
Moshav Zekenim #2 (citing Nazir 45a): It includes a Mechusar Kipurim (who did not bring the Korban needed to complete his Taharah).
Unlike other Tum'os, which become Tahor - or partially Tahor - via Tevilah alone.
Why does the Torah see fit to repeat "es Mishkan Hashem Timei"?
Rashi: The Torah is referring to someone who entered the Mishkan after Toveling, but before performing Haza'ah on the third and seventh days). 1
Ramban and R. Bachye: One needs to add a 'Shin' or the word 'asher' (to read " ? asher es Mishkan Hashem Timei"), 2 to indicate that it is speaking about someone who entered the Mishkan (after Tevilah but before performing Haza?ah on the third and seventh days).
Why does the Torah repeat Kareis twice - here and in Pasuk 20?
Rashi (on Pasuk 20), Ramban #1 (citing Shevu?os 16b) and R. Bachye #1: Refer to 19:20:1:1.
Ramban #2 and R. Bachye #2: The current Pasuk refers to a Tamei who entered the Mishkan; Pasuk 20, to a Tamei who ate Kodshim 1 - incorporating Tum?as Mikdash ve?Kodashav.
Ramban #3: The current Kareis refers to someone who touches a Meis, as the Pasuk specifically states, whereas the Kareis in Pasuk 20 includes someone who is under the same roof.
R. Bachye #4 (according to Kabalah): "Mishkan" and "Mikdash" hint at the Beis-Hamikdash shel Matah which corresponds to the Beis- Hamikdash shel Ma?alah 2 - as hinted in Yechezkel 45:4 "le?Mikdash ha?Mikdash". 3 4
Shevu'os, 16b: Refer to 19:20:1:2.
Why does the Torah here prescribe Kareis for someone who is Metamei the Mishkan, and Misah in Metzora Vayikra, 15:31?
Sifri: To teach us that Kareis is synonymous with Misah - that Kareis, besides being a punishment of the Soul, also incorporates physical death. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 59.
Seeing as the Mei Nidah is sprinkled via Haza'ah (with the finger), as the Torah will write (in Pasuk 19, why does the Torah write "Mei Nidah Lo Zorak alav" (implying from the bowl)?
Yerushalmi Pesachim, 5:6: To teach us that Haza'ah incorporates Zerikah - and that consequently, if the Kohen sprinkles directly from the bowl, the sprinkling is valid. 1
See Torah Temimah note 60.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) phrases "Tamei Yih'yeh, Od Tum'aso bo"?
Nazir, 45a: "Tamei Yih'yeh" incorporates a T'vul Yom; "Od Tum'aso bo", a Mechusar Kipurim, 1 in the Chiyuv Kareis for entering the Mishkan be'Tum'ah.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "be'Nefesh ha'Adam" precludes a dead animal from obligating Haza'ah. Why is this needed? Other Tum'os (than a human Mes) do not obligate Haza'ah! (Riva)
Because Misah was decreed on the animals at the same time as it was decreed on Adam - and the Parah Adumah comes to atone for Misah.
