Men who were tomei approached Moshe Rabbenu, saying:
"We are impure . . . why should we lose out, by not offering
the Korbon Hashem?" (Bamidbar 9:7) There is an obvious
difficulty: they knew that one who is tomei could not
bring a korbon. Why then were they complaining? Were
they insinuating that the halacha was unfair?
Let us examine the very first korbon Pesach that
Bnei Yisroel brought.
The Torah records two instances in which Bnei Yisroel
ate the Pesach offering. The first is discussed in
parshas Bo, and was before we left Mitzrayim
(Shemos 12). The second was during the following year
in the wilderness, mentioned in Beha'alosecho (Bamidbar
9). Not only was the Pesach Mitzrayim the first
korbon Pesach that Bnei Yisroel brought, indeed it was
their first offering of any kind.
Interestingly, a review of the Torah's discussion of the
Pesach in parshas Bo reveals that although the
Torah lists all the mitzvos and halochos pertaining to the
Pesach in parshas Bo, nonetheless, the Torah
never actually refers to the Pesach Mitzrayim as a
korbon! It is only the following year, when Bnei
Yisroel were already in the midbar, that the Torah
calls the Pesach, "korbon laHashem" (Ibid. 9:7)
Accordingly, it appears that Pesach Mitzrayim was not
considered a korbon; and the first time that Bnei
Yisroel offered a korbon Pesach was in the
midbar.
So what was the difference between the Pesach Mitzrayim
and the Pesach that Bnei Yisroel brought in the
wilderness?
One difference can be derived from this question posed by the
gemora in Pesochim 96a. Since we do not find,
says the gemara, that Bnei Yisroel had an altar in
Mitzrayim, how did they burn the fats of the Pesach
Mitzrayim? Abayei answers rhetorically: "Who says they
did not roast them on a spit?" The gemara continues:
They had three altars that year: two doorposts and the lintel
upon which they placed the blood. However, there was no other
altar in Mitzrayim. The fats were therefore not burnt, but
rather were eaten by Bnei Yisroel (Rabbeinu Chananel; Aruch;
see Rashi; cf. Meiri).
The Chasam Sofer writes that for this reason the Pesach
Mitzrayim cannot be considered a korbon.
Furthermore, he adds, even the reference by the gemara
to the doorposts as a mizbeiach was only meant
figuratively. The doorposts did not have the halachic status
of a mizbeiach (Chasam Sofer ,Teshuvos Yoreh Deah
235).
Even in the Beis Hamikdash, korbonos may not be
offered if there is no mizbeiach. If the altar was
damaged and rendered posul, any korbon that was
slaughtered before it is repaired is also posul
(Zevochim 59a). These korbonos remained
posul, even if the mizbeiach was repaired the
same day. Furthermore, until the mizbeiach was fixed,
it was forbidden to partake of any korbon (Zevochim 60a,
See Tosafos ibid. 61b and Bovo Metzia 53b). It appears
that the very kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash was
dependent on the mizbeiach. See on this Sefer
Hamitzvos LehoRambam, shoresh 12 and mitzvas asei
20; 33 with Hasogos HaRamban. Also see Sefer
Hachinuch mitzva 95 with Minchas Chinuch.
The Or HaChaim (Bamidbar 19:2) raises the following
question: Why, when delineating the laws of Pesach
Mitzrayim, does the Torah not mention that one who is
tomei cannot participate in the Pesach? It is
only in the following year, in the desert, that the Torah
excludes those who were tomei from offering the
Pesach. The Or HaChaim responds that one could not
become tomei before Matan Torah. The Brisker
Rov however demonstrates that the Jews did indeed contract
tumah before Matan Torah (Chiddushei HaGriz al
Hatorah, Bamidbar 9:6).
Since halachically the Pesach Mitzrayim was not
considered a korbon, we can understand why the
restriction on tumah did not apply. Only after the
Mishkan was erected and it became a korbon like
every other and they were commanded to offer the fats of the
Pesach on the Mizbeiach, did a tomei
nefesh become prohibited from participating in the
Pesach.
Let us return now to the tomei men who appeared before
Moshe. Given our explanation that the first Pesach did not
possess the halachic status of a korbon, we can
understand their complaint better. The main mitzvah of the
korbon Pesach is to eat its meat, as Pesach
Mitzrayim demonstrates since there that was the only
thing they did.
Another indication of this principle is that although an
individual who is tomei cannot offer any korbon,
if the majority of the nation is impure, or if a pure
Kohen is not available, then all the korbonos
that are part of the daily, Shabbos, and festival
services can be brought in a tuma-state. This is known
as tumah hutroh betzibbur (Yoma 6b).
This, however, applies only to the avoda, the ritual
service involved with the korbon: Its blood may be
sprinkled on the side of the Mizbeiach and the fats
may be burnt on the altar. Nevertheless, it remains forbidden
for anyone impure to eat the meat of the offering. Even
though there is a mitzva to eat the meat of a korbon,
since atonement can be achieved without eating the
korbon meat, it is forbidden to do so betumah.
The korbon Pesach, however, is an exception to this
rule since the main reason that it was brought was in order
to eat it (Pesochim 62b).
This was their argument! The men told Moshe that since they
saw that mitzva of the first Pesach was to eat from it (there
was no avodas mizbeiach) they understood that eating
the Pesach remains the main focus of the mitzva even
after there is a mizbeiach. That being the case,
tumah should not prevent one from participating in the
Pesach offering, just as it did not in Mitzrayim.
Although now they possessed the Mishkan and they were
therefore obligated to offer the Pesach on the
Mizbeiach, they reasoned that the mitzva in essence
remained the same. Hence they said to Moshe: Why should we be
left out from the korbon Hashem? Why should we lose
out on our mitzva, now that the Pesach is a korbon
that must be consumed on the Mizbeiach for
Hashem?
It should be noted that until these men approached Moshe,
there is no mention in the Torah that one who is tomei
cannot specifically bring a Pesach. This was just
understood from the general rule that a korbon cannot
be brought betumah.
Rabbi Levinson is a member of the Melbourne Kollel and
editor of its journal "Moadim Uzmanim."
