{
    "title": "Sifrei Bamidbar",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Bamidbar",
    "text": [
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:1-2) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp every leper (metzora) and everyone with a (genital discharge (zav), and everyone that is unclean by (contact with) a body (tamei meth).\" Why was this section stated? (For) from (Bamidbar 19:20) \"A man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, for he has defiled the sanctuary of the L-rd,\" we hear the punishment; but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written \"Command the children of Israel that they send out of the camp … (3) and they shall not make unclean their camps in which I dwell.\" This (3) is the exhortation that the unclean not enter the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness.",
            " \"Command\": The command is immediately, for present performance and for future generations. You say thus, but perhaps it is only for future performance! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"Command the children of Israel that they send … (Bamidbar 19:4) \"And the children of Israel did so, sending them outside the camp\" — whence we derive that the command is for immediate performance. And whence do we derive that it is (also) for future generations? From (Vayikra 24:2) \"Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear olive oil … (3) … an eternal statute for your generations.\" — But how do we derive (the same) for all the commands in the Torah? R. Yishmael says: Since we find unqualified commands in the Torah, and one of them was qualified as being for present performance and for future generations, we derive the same for all the mitzvoth in the Torah. R. Yehudah b. Bethira says: \"command\" in all places connotes impulsion (to the act), as it is written (Devarim 3:28) \"And command Joshua and strengthen him and fortify him\" — whence we learn \"We strengthen only the (internally) strengthened,\" and \"We impel only the (internally) impelled.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: \"Command\" in all places entails expense, as it is written (Vayikra 24:2) \"Command the children of Israel that they take to you pure olive oil,\" (Bamidbar 35:2) \"Command the children of Israel that they give to the Levites from the inheritance, etc.\" (Bamidbar 28:2) \"Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My bread, for My fires\" — whence we see that \"command\" in all places entails expense. Except in one; and which is that? (Bamidbar 34:2) \"Command the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of Canaan, etc.\" — where the intent is: Impel them to the division of the land. Rebbi says: \"Command\" in all places is exhortation, as it is written (Bereshit 2:16-17) \"And the L-rd G-d commanded (i.e., exhorted) the man, saying … but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 5:2) \"that they send out of the camp\": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) \"Outside the camp shall you send them.\" (Bamidbar 5:3) \"and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell\": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is \"and they shall not make unclean their camps\" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written \"and they shall not make unclean their camps?\" Because from \"they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth,\" I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) \"Solitary shall he sit\" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written \"and they shall not make unclean their camps\" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor.",
            " This is the source for the sages' gradations of partitions (mechitzoth). Wherever zav confers tumah, metzora (leper) confers tumah. metzora is of greater stringency (than zav) in that it confers tumah upon one who enters (a house afflicted with tzara'ath [viz. Vayikra 14:46] [— wherefore a metzora is sent out of all three camps]). Wherever tamei meth confers tumah, zav confers tumah. zav is of greater stringency (than tamei meth) in that it confers tumah under an even mesama (a stone beneath which there is a cavity [viz. Vayikra 15:9] [— wherefore a zav is sent out of two camps]). Wherever tvul yom (one who has immersed in the daytime [pending purification in the evening]) confers tumah, tamei meth confers tumah. tamei meth is of greater stringency (than tvul yom) in that it confers tumah upon a man (who touches him, viz. [Bamidbar 19:22] [— wherefore a tamei meth is sent out of one camp]). Wherever one's lacking atonement (through an offering) renders (him) unfit (for eating consecrated food) tvul yom renders (him) unfit. tvul yom is of greater stringency (than one's lacking atonement) in that he renders terumah unfit.",
            " \"that they send out of the camp\": Is this speaking of all men or only the Levites, the carriers of the ark? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) \"From male until female shall you send out\" — Scripture speaks of all men. R. Yoshiyah says \"that they send out of the camp\" connotes both adults and minors. You say both adults and minors, but perhaps the criterion (for inclusion) should be punishment, viz.: Just as we find re sanctuary defilement that only adults are punished, viz. (Ibid. 19:20) \"And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off\" — here, too, only adults are intended. It is, therefore, written \"From male until female shall you send out,\" both adults and minors. R. Yochanan says: Why is it written \"From male until female shall you send out\"? Because it is written \"They shall send out of the camp,\" I might think, only these (viz. (Ibid. 2). Whence do I derive (the same for) all the other types of tumah? From \"From male until female — any (type of tumah) that affects male or female — shall you send out.\" This tells me only of male and female. Whence do we derive the same for one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From (the redundant) \"Outside the camp shall you send them.\" This tells me only of one who can be sent away (i.e., of one who can walk). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who cannot be sent away (i.e., that he must be taken by another)? From \"Outside the camp shall you send them.\" This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) appurtenances (that have become tamei)? From \"and they shall not make unclean their camps.\" R. Akiva says: \"Outside of the camp shall you send them\" connotes both men and appurtenances. R. Yishmael says: It is derived by induction, viz.: A man is subject to plague tumah and garments are subject to plague tumah. Just as a man is subject to being sent away, so, appurtenances. — No, this may be so for a man, who imparts tumah (to an object) by reclining (mishkav) or sitting (moshav [upon it]), for which reason he must be sent away — as opposed to appurtenances, which do not impart tumah in that manner! — No, this is refuted by (the instance of) stones from a leprous house, which, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav or moshav, require being sent away. Do not wonder, then, if appurtenances, though they do not impart tumah through mishkav and moshav are to be sent away. R. Yossi Haglili says \"From male until female shall you send them out\": Just as male and female are distinctive in being subject to becoming proto-tumah (av hatumah) require being sent away, so, all that are thus susceptible — to exclude earthenware vessels, which are not thus susceptible.",
            " (Vayikra 17:15) \"and every soul that eats neveilah (carcass) or treifah (what is \"torn\") … he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water …\" R. Yitzchak says: It is written (Ibid. 16) \"And if he does not wash (his clothes) and he does not bathe his flesh (and he eats kodshim or enters the sanctuary), he shall bear his sin.\" For not bathing his body Scripture makes him liable to kareth (\"cutting-off'). You say, it is for not bathing his body, but perhaps it is for not washing his clothes! — Can you say this? If for the more stringent tumath meth he is not punished (with kareth) for not washing his clothes, how much more so is he not punished for not washing his clothes for the less stringent eating of carcass! If so, what is the intent of \"And if he does not wash his clothes\"? To serve as an exhortation (against not washing them).",
            " \"Outside of the camp shall you send them\": What is the intent of this (after \"They shall send out of the camp\")? From \"They shall send out of the camp,\" I might think the intent is (only) that they not touch the ark or its bearers, but they should be assigned a place for themselves (inside the camp). It is, therefore, written \"Outside of the camp shall you send them\": \"and they shall not make unclean their camps\" — whence (i.e., from the three-fold repetition of \"camp\") they stated: There were three camps: the Israelite camp, the Levite camp, and the camp of the Shechinah. From the entrance to Jerusalem until the Temple mount — the Israelite camp. From the entrance to the Temple mount until the azarah (the Temple courtyard) — the Levite camp. From the entrance to the azarah and inwards — the camp of the Shechinah. (Ibid. 3) \"in whose midst I dwell\": Beloved are Israel, who, even when they are tamei, the Shechinah is among them, as it is written (Vayikra 16:16) \"who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanliness,\" and (Bamidbar) 35:34) \"And you shall not defile the land which you inhabit, in which I dwell, for I, the L-rd, dwell in the midst of the children of Israel (even when they are unclean).\"",
            " (Ibid. 5:4) \"And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp\": R. Yossi Haglili says: Come and see how great is the power of transgression. For before they stretched forth their hands to transgress (with the golden calf), there were no zavim or lepers among them, and after they did so, there were zavim and lepers among them. In the course (of our learning) we learned that these three things (zavim, lepers, and tamei meth) occurred on the same day (the day that they made the golden calf). R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Come and see how great is the power of transgression. For before they stretched forth their hands to transgress, what is written of them? (Shemot 24:17) \"and the sight of the glory of the L-rd was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain in the eyes of the children of Israel\" — They did not fear and they did not tremble. After they stretched forth their hands to transgress, what is written of them? (Ibid. 34:30) \"And Aaron and all of Israel saw Moses, and, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him.\" \"And the children of Israel did so\": This is to declare the praise of Israel, that just as Moses told them, thus did they do. What is the intent of (the additional) \"As the L-rd spoke to Moses, so did the children of Israel do\"? To teach that the unclean ones themselves, (who were sent out), did not protest."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:5-6) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do of all the sins of man\": Why is this section mentioned? (i.e., it has already been mentioned elsewhere.) — It is written (Vayikra 5:20-22) \"If a soul sin and commit a profanation against the L-rd … or if he find a lost object and swear falsely, etc.\" But the stolen property of a proselyte is not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (here) \"Speak to the children of Israel: A man or a woman, if they do all of the sins of man.\" Scripture comes to teach us about the stolen property of a proselyte that if one swore to him falsely (that he did not steal it) and the proselyte died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, not having any heirs). This is a rule in the Torah: Any section stated in one place in the Torah, missing one thing, and repeated in a different place is repeated only for the sake of the thing that is originated. R. Akiva says: Everything stated therein must be expounded. R. Yoshiyah (in explication of R. Akiva) says: Why is \"a man or a woman\" stated? From (Shemot 21:3) \"And if a man open a pit or if a man dig a pit,\" I would know only of a man. Whence would I derive (the same for) a woman? From \"a man or a woman,\" to liken a woman to a man in respect to all transgressions and damages in the Torah. R. Yonathan says: (The above derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Ibid. 34) \"The owner (whether man or woman) of the pit shall pay,\" and (Ibid. 22:5) \"Pay shall pay the kindler (whether man or woman) of the fire.\" Why, then, is it stated \"a man or a woman\"? For its (own) teaching, (i.e., that the law of theft of the proselyte\" obtains both with men and with women.) \"if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd\": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 5:21] \"If a soul sin and commit a profanation, etc.\") Because it is written \"If a soul sin and commit a profanation… (22) or find a lost object, etc.\", I might think that only one who lies in respect to what is mentioned therein is regarded as one who lies against the L-rd Himself. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who lies in respect to all other things? It is, therefore, written \"if they do all of the sins of man to commit a profanation against the L-rd.\" \"to commit a profanation\" (\"limol ma'al\"). \"me'ilah\" in all places is \"lying.\" And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) \"Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers,\" and (Joshua 7:1) \"And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban,\" and (I Chronicles 10:13) \"And Saul died because of his falsification ('bima'alo ma'al') against the L-rd.\" And, in respect to Uzziyahu (II Chronicles 26:18), \"Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta'),\" and (Bamidbar 5:12) \"… and she be false (uma'ala) to him\" — whence we see that \"me'ilah\" is \"lying.\" (Ibid. 6) \"and that soul shall be guilty\": Why is this stated? (i.e., it seems redundant.) \"a man or a woman\" would seem to indicate specifically these. Whence would I derive (the same for) one whose sex is unknown or a hermaphrodite? From \"and that soul shall be guilty\" — All are included, even proselytes and servants. — But this would seem to include all, both the above and minors! — Would you say this? If a minor is exempt from (punishment for) the grave sin of idolatry, how much more so (is he exempt from punishment for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! Whence is it derived that if one stole and swore (falsely) and went to bring the money (to repay) and the guilt-offering and could not manage to bring them before he died, that his heirs are exempt? From \"and that soul shall be guilty.\" — But perhaps just as they are exempt from the guilt-offering, so, they are exempt from the principal. — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) \"and he shall give it (the principal) to the one to whom he is liable (for payment).\" \"and that soul shall be guilty\": Why is this stated? Whence do you derive that if one burned his neighbor's grain sack on the Sabbath that beth-din does not exact payment from him because he is liable to the death penalty? From \"and that soul shall be guilty\" (i.e., in the aforementioned instance, the life alone is taken.) (Ibid. 7) \"and they confess their sin which they have done\": This tells me that a sin-offering requires confession. Whence do I derive (the same for) a guilt-offering? From \"and that soul be guilty and they confess.\" R. Nathan says: This is a paradigm (binyan av) for all that are put to death that they require confession."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:7) \"and they confess their sins which they have done\": and not for what his father has done. So that if one says to him: Give me the pledge that I deposited with your father and he says: You did not deposit (any pledge), and the other says: I beswear you (to that effect), and he says \"Amen,\" I might think that (if he confesses) he is liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:5) \"then he shall confess wherein he has sinned,\" and not for what his father has done. \"then he shall restore his guilt at its head\": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Ibid. 5:24) \"and he shall pay it at its head,\" I might think that this applies to monetary payment (of the principal). Whence is it derived that he may return the theft itself? From \"then he shall restore.\" (Bamidbar 5:7) \"and its fifth shall he add to it\": so that it and its fifth make five (equal parts). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: a fifth of the principal. \"and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable\": Why is this stated? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:24) \"To whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of (the acknowledgement of) his guilt,\" I might think that he must give it either to him or to his messenger. Whence do I derive (that he may also give it to) the messenger of beth-din or to the heir (of the one to whom he is liable)? From \"and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable.\" R. Nathan says: If one stole a maneh from his neighbor, and he came to beth-din, and he did not manage to pay it before the debtor of the robbed one arrived — Whence is it derived that beth-din may take it from the robber and give it to the debtor? From \"and he shall give it to the one to whom he is liable\" — in any manner."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:8) \"And if the man does not have a redeemer (to whom to return the debt\"): R. Yishmael says: Now is there a man in Israel who does not have a redeemer? Scripture (in this instance) is teaching about one who robs a proselyte and swears to him (falsely), after which the proselyte dies — that he pays the principal and the fifth to the Cohanim and the guilt-offering to the altar, (a proselyte, halachically, having no heirs.) R. Nathan says: \"And if the man does not have a redeemer\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do we derive (the same for) a woman? From \"to whom to return the debt,\" (connoting either man or woman). If so, why is it written \"the man\"? For a man, a search must be made to determine whether or not he has a redeemer. For a minor, a search need not be made, it being certain that he has no redeemer (i.e., sons who can inherit him). (\"And if the man does not have a redeemer\":) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer. Scripture speaks of the one who was robbed. — But perhaps it speaks of the robber. — (This cannot be, for) \"to whom to return the debt\" proves that it speaks of the one who is robbed. \"the debt (ha'asham) which is returned\": Scripture here speaks of money (and not of the guilt-offering proper). — But perhaps it does speak of the guilt-offering proper! — (This cannot be, for) \"aside from the ram of atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him\" speaks of this. How, then, am I to understand \"ha'asham which is returned to the L-rd\"? As referring to money (i.e., the principal and the fifth). \"is the L-rd's to the Cohein\": The L-rd has acquired it and He has given it to the Cohanim of the officiating watch. — But perhaps he can give it to any Cohein he wishes! — It is, therefore, written \"aside from the ram of atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him.\" (He gives it) to those who make atonement for him by it — the men of the watch.",
            " If the thief (himself) were a Cohein, I might think that he acquires it. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If he acquires that of others, shall he not acquire what is his own! (That is, if others had stolen from the proselyte, who died without heirs, the Cohein acquires that theft. How much more so does he acquire the theft which he already possesses!) R. Nathan phrased it otherwise, viz.: If something which I do not acquire until it comes into my hand (i.e., ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser), another cannot acquire and take it from me, then something which I do acquire before it comes into my hand (i.e., what has been stolen from a proselyte without heirs), then when it does come into my hand, how much more so (does it follow) that another cannot acquire it and take it from me! — No, this may be true of something which he does not acquire until it comes into his hand, for just as he has no portion in it, so, others have no portion in it. But would you say the same for this (what has been stolen from a proselyte)? Just as he has a portion in it, so, others have a portion in it, and since this is so, it follows that it should be taken from his hand and be apportioned among the men of the officiating watch.",
            " Whence is it derived that if one steals from a proselyte and swears (falsely) to him and goes to bring the money and the guilt-offering and does not manage to bring them before the proselyte dies — (Whence is it derived that his heirs are exempt (from the guilt-offering)? From \"aside from the ram of atonement with which atonement shall be made for him.\" (And in the above situation, his death has atoned for him.) Thus did R. Akiva teach before he came from Zifron. When he came from Zifron he said: If he gave the money to the men of the watch and then the proselyte died, the heirs do not retrieve it from the Cohein, and I pronounce over him (the giver) (Ibid. 10) \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be.\" The Cohein says to the heir: Bring a guilt-offering and it will be sacrificed, and he (the heir) says: \"whereby atonement shall be made for him\" — to exclude (from the guilt-offering) one who died, whose death has atoned for him.",
            " \"aside from the ram of atonement\": From \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be,\" do you say that if he gave the money to (the watch of) Yehoyariv and (afterwards) the guilt-offering to (that of) Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation and I pronounce over him (the giver) \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him shall it be,\" or even if he gave the guilt-offering (first) to Yehoyariv, and (then) the money to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation and I pronounce over him \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him shall it be\"? It is, therefore, written \"aside from the ram of atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him\" (and there is no atonement until the money has been returned.) But, (in the above instance), if the animal to be offered is still alive, it is sacrificed by (the watch of) Yedayah, and he (the giver) is told to offer another offering and give it to Yedayah (sic. [Yehoyariv?])"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:9) \"And all terumah of all the holy things of the children of Israel which they present to the Cohein, to him shall it be.\" R. Yishmael says: Scripture comes to teach you that if one dedicates (to the Temple) his grain pile before he levels it off and then he redeems it, he must take terumah (from it). I might think (he must do so) even if he redeemed it after he leveled the pile; it is, therefore, written (of terumah, Devarim 18:4) \"the first of your corn (pile).\" R. Akiva says: \"and all terumah\": Scripture comes to teach you that if he wishes to make his entire granary terumah, he may do so, so long as he leaves some over. \"and all terumah of all the holy things\": Scripture hereby teaches us that the laws of terumah apply to all varieties (of produce, and not just to those specifically indicated). Issi b. Yehudah says: If the ma'aser — the less stringent — obtains with all produce, how much more so, terumah — the more stringent. Variantly: If ma'aser, which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah), obtains with all produce, how much more so, terumah, which obtains in all years! Issi b. Menachem says: if ma'aser, which is brought only as an adjunct to learning and fear (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all produce, how much more so, the more stringent, terumah! (Ibid. 5:9) \"which they offer to the Cohein, to him shall it be\": R. Yishmael says: Now is terumah offered to the Cohein? (Does he not rather come to receive it?) What, then, is the intent of \"which they offer to the Cohein\"? Because it is written (Shemot 23:19) \"The first of the first-fruits (bikkurim) of your land shall you bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d,\" but we are not told what is to be done with them; it is, therefore, written \"which they offer to the Cohein, to him shall it be.\" Scripture hereby teaches us that bikkurim, (which are presented as offerings), are to be given to the Cohanim."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:10) \"And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be\": All kodshim (\"holies\") were included in \"And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be.\" Scripture \"pulled out\" all the kodshim and gave them to the Cohanim, leaving over (to the owners) only (\"portions\") of thank-offerings, peace-offerings, the Pesach offering, beast-tithe, second-tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the fourth year). Variantly: And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be\": From here you derive that to the Cohein who performs the sacrifice (even in a different watch), its service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin belong \"to him\" (the Cohein). Variantly: \"And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be\": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 19:24) \"And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy in praise of the L-rd,\" (I would not know) \"holy\" to the owners or \"holy\" to the Cohanim? It is, therefore, written \"And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be.\" Scripture here speaks of neta revai, that it belongs to the owners. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: \"holy\" to the owners. You say \"holy\" to the owners, but perhaps it is \"holy\" to the Cohanim! — You derive it thus: second-tithe is called \"holy\" (viz. Devarim 26:13) \"and neta revai is called \"holy.\" Just as second-tithe is \"holy\" to the owners, so, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by terumah, which is called \"holy\" (viz. Vayikra 22:14) and yet belongs to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe requires bringing to the place (Jerusalem) and neta revai requires bringing to the place. If I learned that second-tithe belongs to the owners, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, belong to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe is called \"holy,\" and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And neta revai is called \"holy,\" and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And this is not to be refuted by terumah, which, even though it is called \"holy,\" does not require bringing to the place, nor by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, do not require redemption. I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will reason out a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing of three facets from a thing that is similar in (these) three facets, and I will not learn a thing of three facets from a thing which is not similar in (these) three facets, but only in one or two. If I have learned, then, that second-tithe belongs to the owners, then neta revai, too, should belong to the owners. R. Yossi says \"holy\" to the owners. You say \"holy\" to the owners, but perhaps it is \"holy\" to the Cohanim! — It is, therefore, written (of neta revai, Vayikra 19:25) \"And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce.\" For whom is it increased? For him to whom it has already been given (in the fourth year, i.e., the owner.)",
            " (Bamidbar 5:10) \"And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18:19) \"All the terumoth of the holy things which the children of Israel will separate for the L-rd have I given to you (Aaron) and to your sons, etc.\", I might think that he (a Cohein) could forcibly seize them (the priestly gifts). It is, therefore, written \"And every man, his holy things, to him shall they be\" — He has the option of giving them to any Cohein he wishes. \"And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be\": If one measured out (terumah) for them (certain Cohanim) on the ground and others (later) joined them, I might think that I pronounce over him \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance the Cohein for whom he measured it out), to him (that Cohein) shall it be\"; it is, therefore, written \"And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be\" (i.e., he retains the option of giving it to those who came later). I might then think that if he measured it out (for him) in a basket and others joined later, I still pronounce over him \"And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be\" (and he can give it to the later ones); it is, therefore, (for such a circumstance) written \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, (in this instance, the first Cohein), to him (that Cohein) shall it be.\" R. Yossi says if one redeemed his (first-born) son within thirty days, and he (the son) died, I might think that I pronounce over him (the father) \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein to him (the Cohein) shall it be\"; it is, therefore, written \"And every man, his holy things, to him (the man) shall they be.\" (If he died) after thirty days, the money is not taken back from the Cohein, it being pronounced over the father \"Whatever a man gives to the Cohein, to him (the Cohein) shall it be.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:12) \"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man, a man, if his wife go astray, and she be faithless to him\": What is the intent of this section? From (Devarim 24:1) \"If a man take a woman and he cohabit with her, etc.\", we hear only that if he had two witnesses (to her adultery) and she had not been forewarned, that she leaves him by divorce. But if she were adulterous in the presence of only one witness or it is in doubt whether she had or had not been adulterous after having been secreted (with the one she had been forewarned against), we did not hear what is to be done with her. It is, therefore, written \"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: \"A man, a man, if his wife go astray, etc.\", that (in the above instance) she must drink the bitter waters. This is the intent of this section. \"A man, a man\": to include the wife of a deaf mute, an imbecile, one who has gone abroad or been incarcerated, or a dullard — that beth-din forewarns her (if she is deporting herself immodestly) to the end of invalidating her kethubah (her marriage contract). I might think, even to the end of making her drink (the bitter waters); it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Ibid. 11) \"Then the man shall bring his wife.\" R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from incarceration. Variantly: \"A man, a man\": to include a woman awaiting levirate marriage (yibum). \"if his wife go astray\": Scripture speaks of those who are fit to be \"wives\" — to exclude a widow married to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who has performed the chaliztah ceremony to break a levirate connection), who are married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a Nethinah (a descendent of the Geveonites) married to an Israelite, and a daughter of an Israelite married to a Nathin or a mamzer. And, according to Akavya b. Mehallalel, (to exclude) a woman who is a proselyte or a freed slave. They (the sages) said to him (Akavya): But there was a freed slave, Charkemis, in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon had her drink (the bitter waters)! He replied: They dissimulated their doing so — whereupon they excommunicated him and he died in his state of excommunication, and beth-din stoned his coffin. (\"if his wife go astray,) and she is guilty of ma'al against him\": (\"ma'al\") In the area of illicit relations or in the area of monetary (fraudulence)? (Ibid. 5:13) \"And a man lie with her a lying of seed\" indicates that ma'al here is in the area of illicit relations, and not in that of monetary (fraudulence). \"and she is guilty of ma'al against him\": \"me'ilah\" in all places is \"lying.\" And thus is it written (I Chronicles 5:25) \"Vayimalu ('and they lied') against the G-d of their fathers,\" and (Joshua 7:1) \"And the children of Israel yimalu ma'al ('falsified') in respect to the ban,\" and (I Chronicles 10:13) \"And Saul died because of his falsification ('bema'alo ma'al') against the L-rd.\" And, in respect to Uzziyahu, king of Judah, (II Chronicles 26:18) \"Leave the sanctuary, for you have acted falsely (ma'alta),\" and (Vayikra 5:21) \"and he (the denier) ma'ala ma'al against the L-rd\" — whence we see that \"me'ilah\" in all places is \"lying.\"",
            " \"And a man lie with her a lying of seed\": a man, and not a minor. \"And a man lie with her\": and not with her sister. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in a place where the forbidder [(i.e., her husband, who forbids her to all men)] does not forbid her all of his days, (for he can divorce her) — she forbids her forbidder (her husband) from living with her (if she secretes herself), then in a place where the forbidder (his wife) forbids her (sister to him) all of his days — how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder (if he cohabits with her sister)! It is, therefore, written (\"and a man lie) with her,\" and not with her sister. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: \"with her\": and not (if he lay with) with his mother-in-law; \"with her\": and not with one of the illicit relations. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one commits a (relatively) \"light\" act of forbidding, in that he does not forbid her all of his days — she forbids her forbidder, then if one commits a grave act of forbidding, in that he forbids her all of his days, how much more so should she forbid (to herself) her forbidder! It is, therefore, written \"with her,\" and not with his mother-in-law; \"with her,\" and not with one of the illicit relations.",
            " (Ibid. 5:13) \"and it be hidden from the eyes of her husband\": but not if her husband see and make himself \"unseeing.\" If her husband knows, he is not permitted to scheme and make her drink.\" \"and she had secreted herself and she be defiled\": (Does this mean that) there were no witnesses to defiling, but there were witnesses for secreting, or that there were no witnesses to both defiling and secreting? If you say this (the latter), she is permitted to her husband. The former, then, is the case and not the latter. There are no witnesses to defiling, but there are witnesses to secreting. \"and she had secreted herself\": We have not been apprised of the (minimum) time of secreting; it is, therefore, written \"and she had secreted herself and she be defiled\": the (minimum) time for defilement — for intercourse; for he'arah (the initial stage) — for circling a palm tree. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Eliezer says: the (minimum) time for pouring a cup. R. Yehoshua says: for drinking it. Ben Azzai says: for frying an egg. R. Akiva says: for swallowing it. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: for swallowing three eggs, one after the other. \"and there be no witness in her\": Is Scripture speaking of two witnesses or of one? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:15) \"There shall not arise one witness against a man for every transgression and for every sin.\" Why (emphasize) one? To serve as a prototype (binyan av), viz.: Wherever \"witness\" (alone) is mentioned, two are understood, unless Scripture specifies \"one.\" \"and she were not seized\": to exclude one who was forced. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of \"light\" tumah (e.g., a widow (cohabiting) with a high-priest, where there is only a lav (transgression of a negative commandment), forced is equated with consenting, how much more so, in an instance of grave tumah, such as ours, where the penalty is death, forced should be equated with consenting; it is, therefore, written \"and she were not seized.\" Or, I might think (that this halachah obtains both) with (the wife of) an Israelite or of a Cohein; it is, therefore, written \"and she (the wife of an Israelite) were not seized\" — to exclude (from being forbidden to her husband) the wife of a Cohein, (who is forbidden to him even if she were forced.) (Ibid. 14) \"And there pass over him a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife\": optional (i.e., \"he may warm his wife.\") These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: mandatory (i.e., \"he must warn his wife.\") R. Akiva says: Why is \"venitma'ah\" (\"and she be tamei\") written three times, (5:14, 5:27, 5:29)? tumah vis-à-vis her husband, and vis-à-vis her cohabitor, and vis-à-vis (her eating) terumah (if she is the daughter of a Cohein). R. Yishmael says: If a divorcée, the \"lighter,\" (in that she may return to her divorcer), is unfit (for marriage) to the priesthood, how much more so sotah, the \"graver,\" (who may not return to her husband; and no verse is needed for this.) (Ibid. 5:14) \"and she were defiled … and she were not defiled\": What is the intent of this? If she were (positively) defiled, why does she drink? And if she were (positively) not defiled, why does he make her drink? Scripture hereby (by this ambiguity) comes to teach us that she drinks only in a case of doubt (as to whether or not) she were defiled. And from here you rule (accordingly) in the instance of (the tumah of sheretz) [a creeping thing], viz.: If in an instance (that of sotah), where unwittingness is not equated with wittingness (to make her tamei) or forcing to consent, doubt is equated with certainty (to forbid her to her husband until she drinks and resolves the doubt), then in an instance where unwittingness (of contact) is equated with wittingness, and forcing with consent, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! And just as here (for tumah to obtain, the locus of the act is) a private domain, there, too, it must be a private domain. Just as here we are dealing with a subject (the woman) which has the intelligence to be questioned, there, too, (for tumah to obtain), we must be dealing with a subject (e.g., the carrier of the sheretz) which has the intelligence to be questioned — whence they ruled: In a case of doubt involving a subject which has the intelligence to be questioned — in the private domain, the ruling is tamei; in the public domain, the ruling is tahor (clean). (In a case of doubt involving a subject) which lacks the intelligence to be questioned, both in the public and in the private domain, the ruling is tahor."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:15) \"Then the man shall bring his wife to the Cohein\": According to the Torah, the man brings his wife to the Cohein. But they said: He is given two Torah scholars (as chaperones) on the way so that he not live with her. R. Yossi says: Her husband is trusted with her, a fortiori, viz. If he is trusted (to be alone) with his wife when she is a niddah, though the punishment for cohabiting with her is kareth, how much more so is he to be trusted with her when she is a sotah, cohabitation with whom is not liable to kareth! They replied: How much more so (is he not to be trusted with her!) If he is not liable to kareth he will not be deterred! Variantly: (The instance of niddah is no refutation). He may be trusted (to be alone with her) when she is a niddah, for she is permitted to him afterwards, but not with a sotah, who may not be permitted to him afterwards. According to the Torah, the husband brings his wife, it being written \"and the man (i.e., her husband) brings his wife to the Cohein.\" \"and he shall bring her offering for her\": Every offering devolving upon her. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: Any offering that permits her to him, such as that of a zavah and that of a woman who has given birth, she brings of what is his and it is not deducted from her kethubah. And any offering that does not permit her to him, such as that for taking a Nazirite vow or desecrating the Sabbath, she brings of what is hers and he deducts it from her kethubah. \"one-tenth of an ephah of meal\": Why state (\"of meal\")? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, that since the first comes only of fine flour, this, too, is to be only of fine flour; it is, therefore, written \"meal.\" \"barley\": Why? For it would follow, since the offering of a sinner comes for a sin and this comes for a sin, then this, too, should come only from wheat; it is, therefore, written \"barley.\" R. Gamliel said: Scribes, allow me, and I will interpret it symbolically, viz.: Just as her deeds were those of a beast, so, her food shall be that of a beast.\" He shall not pour oil upon it\": If he does, he transgresses a negative commandment. Would you say, then, that just as he transgresses (a negative commandment) with his oil so, he transgresses with his frankincense? Would you say that? (I would say that) he transgresses with oil, for he cannot remove it, but not with frankincense, for he can remove it.\" It is, therefore, written \"He shall not pour oil upon it\" and \"He shall not place frankincense upon it\" — so that if he places either oil or frankincense upon it he transgresses a negative commandment. Why is that? \"For it is an offering of rancors.\" \"rancors\": two rancors: rancor against her and rancor against her husband (and) just as there is rancor below, there is rancor Above. \"an offering of memorial\": I hear (from this, a \"memorial\" [i.e., a \"reminder\"] both of) merit and of liability; it is, therefore, written (afterwards, to negate this) \"a reminder of sin.\" All of the \"memorials\" in the Torah are for the good, except for this one, which is for punishment. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: This one, too, is for the good, as it is written (Ibid. 28) \"And if the woman had not been defiled (in this concealment), and she be clean, then she shall be absolved (of the blighting waters), and she will sow seed.\" This (verse) tells me only \"a reminder of sin.\" Whence do I derive (that it is also) a reminder of merit? From \"an offering of memorial\" — in any event. R. Yishmael says: \"an offering of memorial\" — general; \"a reminder of sin\" — specific. (This is an instance of \"general-specific,\" (where the resolution is) — \"There obtains in the general only what is stated in the specific,\" (i.e., that it is a memorial of sin and not of merit.) For, (if not for this principle) the \"contender\" could argue. Which attribute (of the L-rd) is stronger? That for good or that for punishment? Certainly, that for good (viz. Shemot 34:7) If the attribute of punishment diminished (that of good), it would be a reminder of sin, but since the attribute of good is stronger, it follows that it should be a reminder of merit. This is an attribute of the Torah: Whenever a \"general-specific\" (application) defeats an a fortiori (application [as in the above]) — If both can be satisfied, the a fortiori (application) is not to be defeated. How can both be satisfied (in our instance) without the a fortiori (application) being defeated? (As follows:) If she had been defiled, then punishment visits her immediately. And if she has a certain merit, that merit may suspend (the operation of the bitter waters) for three months so that the fetus is recognizable. These are the words of Abba Yossi b. Channan. R. Eliezer b. Yitzchak of Kfar Darom says: For nine months, as it is written (Ibid. 28) \"and if she is clean, then she will sow seed. Just as \"seed\" connotes nine months, so, merit (can suspend for) nine months. R. Yishmael says: Twelve months. And even though there is no proof for this, there is intimation of it in (Daniel 4:24-26) \"O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you … All this befell King Nevuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months, etc.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Merit does not suspend (the operation of) the blighting waters. For if you say that it does, you \"dilute\" the (deterrence of the) bitter waters before all women, and they will drink them; and you cast an evil name upon the clean ones who drank. For people will say: They were really defiled, but their merit suspended (the operation of the waters). Rebbi says: I can determine (whether or not she was clean). If she were clean, in the end, she will die, as all men do, and if she had been defiled, she will die as depicted by Scripture, viz. (Bamidbar 5:27) \"and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall.\" R. Shimon says: Who is going to inform all of the standersby that she will die and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall? But (if she were guilty), then as soon as she drank, her face would turn green and her eyes would bulge, and her veins would swell in her, and they would say: Hurry and take her out so that she not defile the azarah (the Temple court)!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:16) \"And the Cohein shall draw her near\": whence it is derived that the draught is not given to two sotahs together. \"and he shall stand her\": He shall not stand with her, her manservant and her maidservants, because she tends to be callous in their presence. \"before the L-rd\": at the gates of Nikanor (opposite the entrance to the sanctuary), whence they stated: The head of the watch would stand those who were tamei at the gates of Nikanor."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:17) \"And the Cohein shall take consecrated water: This refers to water consecrated in a vessel, the waters of the laver. \"in an earthen vessel\": We are hereby taught that all vessels are not equated with earthen vessels. For it would follow: Since soil and water consecrate in the instance of the red heifer and soil and water consecrate in the instance of sotah, then if I derive that all vessels are equated with earthen vessels re the red heifer, then re sotah, too, all vessels should be equated with earthen vessels; it is, therefore, written (specifically) \"in an earthen vessel\" (to negate the above derivation). \"in an earthen vessel\": a new one. For it would follow: If I have derived that re the red heifer both a new and an old vessel are permitted, I should derive the same for sotah. It is, therefore, written here \"in an earthen vessel,\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 14:5) \"into an earthen vessel.\" Just as there, a new one, here, too, a new one. These are the words of R. Yishmael. \"and of the soil that shall be on the floor of the mishkan the Cohein shall take\": Scripture hereby teaches us that if there were no soil there, he brings soil from elsewhere and places it there; for it is the place which consecrates. Issi b. Yehudah says (\"that shall be\"): to include (the same for) the soil of the Temple (in Jerusalem). Issi b. Menachem says (in demurral): If in respect to a lesser form of tumah (e.g., dead-body tumah or sheretz tumah), the Temple (mikdash) was equated (vis-à-vis kareth liability for entry) with the sanctuary (mishkan), then, in respect to a graver form of tumah, sotah, (where death is the punishment,) how much more so, should the (strictures of the) mikdash be equated with (those of) the mishkan! Why, then, need it be written \"that shall be on the floor of the mishkan\"? — That he not bring soil in his basket, (but shall use soil that is already there.) R. Shimon says: It is written here \"afar\" (\"and of the afar that is on the floor of the mishkan\"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 19:17) \"And they shall take for the unclean one of the afar of the burning of the (heifer) for cleaning.\" Just as \"afar\" here,\" \"afar on the face of the water\" (i.e., visible on the surface of the water), so, there, afar on the face of the water. And, just as there if the afar preceded the water, it is valid, so, here. \"the Cohein shall take (the afar) and place it on the water\": so that it be visible. Three \"things\" in the Torah must be visible: the ashes of the heifer (Ibid.), the afar of the sotah, and the spittle of the yevamah (viz. Devarim 25:9). R. Yishmael says: Also the blood of the (slaughtered) bird (viz. Vayikra 14:6)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:18) \"And the Cohein shall stand the woman before the L-rd\": Where he stood her before (viz. Ibid. 16), he stands her afterwards, (after she had been moved away from her original position [They would walk her from place to place to \"weary\" her into confession]). \"And he shall uncover the head of the woman\": The Cohein moves behind her and uncovers her hair to fulfill the mitzvah to do so. R. Yishmael said: From here (i.e., from the fact that he is to uncover her hair) we derive an exhortation for the daughters of Israel to cover their hair. And though there is no proof for this, there is an intimation of it in (II Samuel 13:19) \"And Tamar put earth upon her head … and she put her hand on her head.\" R. Yehudah says: If her top-knot were beautiful, he did not expose it, and if her hair were beautiful, he did not dishevel it. If she were dressed in white, she is dressed in black. If black were becoming to her, she is divested of it and clothed in ungainly garments. If there were golden ornaments upon her — necklaces, nose-rings, and rings — they are taken from her to render her unattractive. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: The daughters of Israel are not made more unattractive than the Torah prescribes, viz. — \"… before the L-rd and he shall uncover the head of the woman.\" They would spread a sheet of linen between him and the people. The Cohein would walk around her in order to fulfill the mitzvah of disheveling her hair. They say to him: Just as she was not solicitous of the honor of the L-rd, so, we are not solicitous of her honor — wherefore she is demeaned in this manner. And all who wish to look at her may do so except her man-servants and her maid-servants, for she is callous in their presence. Both men and women, kin and non-kin, may look at her, as it is written (Ezekiel 23:48) \"and all the women will be chastised and not act according to your lewdness.\" (Devarim, Ibid.) \"and he shall place into her hands the offering of memorial\" Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: So that she is \"wearied\" into confession. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is so solicitous of the transgressors of His will, how much more so, of the doers of His will! \"and in the hand of the Cohein will be the bitter waters\": Scripture herby apprises us that the waters turn bitter only in the hand of the Cohein. Variantly: They are called \"bitter\" because of their effect — they impart bitterness to the body and convulse the eye."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:19) \"And the Cohein shall beswear her\": The Cohein administers the oath and she does not swear of herself. For it would follow (that she does), viz.: It is written here \"swear,\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:4) \"swear.\" Just as there, he swears of himself, so, here, she should swear of herself. It is, therefore, written \"And the Cohein shall beswear her.\" \"and he shall say to the woman\": in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in the instance of yevamah, (the instance) of lesser stringency, the other languages are not equated with the holy tongue (Hebrew) (viz. Devarim 25:9), then, (in the instance of) sotah, the graver instance, how much more so should the other languages not be equated with the holy tongue! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall say to the woman\" — in any language that she understands. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation of R. Yoshiyah) is not necessary; for it is written (Bamidbar 5:22) \"and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'\" If she does not understand, how can she say this! — But perhaps she says \"Amen\" only on the curse (i.e., \"to swell the belly, etc.\" [and not on the oath])! — (This cannot be,) for she says Amen twice — both on the curse and on the oath. What, then, is the intent of \"and he shall say to the women\" (according to R. Yonathan)? That the Cohein teaches her (the import of) the order of the oath. (5:19) \"If no man has lain with you\": We are hereby taught that he opens for merit. He says to her: Much wine causes this. Much frivolity causes this. Much childishness causes this. Many have preceded you and been swept away (by lust). Do not allow His great name written in holiness to be erased by the (bitter) waters. He recounts before her things from the tradition, things mentioned in the early writings (Iyyov 15:18) \"which wise men relate and which they did not withhold from their fathers.\" And he says before her things which are not fit to be heard, by her and by all the families of her father's house. R. Yishmael says: In the beginning he apprises her of the strength of the bitter waters. He says to her: My daughter, what are these bitter waters like? Like a dry powder placed on raw flesh, which causes no harm, but which, when it finds a sore spot, penetrates and descends. You, too, if you are clean, drink and do not refrain, and, if you are unclean, in the end you will be swollen by these bitter, blighting waters."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:20) \"And you, if you have gone astray\": This tells me only of the regular mode. Whence do I derive (that the same applies for) the irregular mode (i.e., anal intercourse)? From \"and if you have become unclean.\" \"and a man has put his lying in you\": to include (in these strictures) one who is impotent, (where there is only \"lying,\" but no seed.) \"aside from your husband\": to include the wife of one who is impotent. He stipulates all (contingencies) with her."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:21) \"Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the curse.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 5:1) \"and he hear the voice of a curse,\" this tells me only of a curse. Whence do I derive that an oath is like a curse? It is derived inductively, viz.: It is written here (Bamidbar) \"curse,\" and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra) \"curse.\" Just as here \"oath\" is equated with \"curse,\" (viz. \"the oath of the curse\"), so, there, \"oath\" is equated with \"curse.\" And just as here, (the oath is administered) with \"yod-keh\" (viz. Ibid. \"May the L-rd [yod-keh-vav-keh] render you, etc.\"), so, all the oaths in the Torah (are administered with) \"yod-keh.\" \"in the midst of your people\": and your people (will remain at) peace. \"in the midst of your people\": and not at this time (when you are in the midst of gentiles.) There is a (crucial) difference between one being degraded in a place where he is known, and one being degraded in a place where he is not known, (the former degradation being more severe)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:22) \"to swell the belly and to make fall the thigh\": R. Yossi Haglili says: This refers to the belly and the thigh of the adulterer. You say the belly and the thigh of the adulterer; but (perhaps it refers to) the belly and the thigh of the adulteress! — (This cannot be, for) [5:21] \"… causing your thigh to fall and your belly to swell\" already refers to the adulteress. How, then, am I to understand \"to swell the belly and to make fall the thigh\"? As referring to the adulterer, Scripture apprising us that just as punishment overtakes her, so, it overtakes him. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If re the attribute of punishment, the \"weaker\" attribute (of the Holy One Blessed be He), if one brings misfortune to his neighbor, he suffers likewise, then re the attribute of benefaction, (the stronger attribute, if one bring benefit to his neighbor,) how much more so (is he benefitted himself!) (Ibid. 22) \"and the woman shall say 'Amen,' 'Amen.'\": \"Amen\" that I have not become unclean; \"Amen\" that I will not become unclean, (in which instance the bitter waters operate retroactively). These are the words of R. Meir. And the sags do not agree, (but they say) \"Amen\" that I have not become unclean (i.e., acceptance of the oath) and (\"Amen\" that) if I have become unclean, they (the waters) should enter her (i.e., acceptance of the curse). \"Amen\" in respect to this man (the suspected adulterer); \"Amen\" in respect to any other man; \"Amen\" when betrothed — \"Amen\" when married; \"Amen\" when awaiting levirate marriage — \"Amen\" after levirate marriage. This is the rule: For a woman to be lived with and (thereby) to be forbidden (to her husband), the stipulated conditions must be those of that time (i.e., while she is still married to him [and not, e.g., before betrothal or after divorce]).",
            " Since oaths are mentioned in the Torah generically, and in one case (that of sotah) it is specifically indicated that the oath must be accompanied by a curse, I derive that the same must obtain with all oaths in the Torah. Since in one case (that of sotah) it is specifically indicated that the oath must be administered under the Name \"yod-keh,\" I derive the same for all oaths in the Torah. And since oaths are mentioned generically in the Torah, and of one of them (sotah), it was specified that it be (answered) with \"Amen,\" so, I derive that the same holds true for all oaths in the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: (\"Amen\" is repeated here) to include the oath administered by the judges, that it be answered by \"Amen.\" For if it is not answered by \"Amen,\" it is rendered a \"vain oath\" (in the name of the L-rd.) Since oaths are mentioned generically in the Torah, and in one case (sotah) it is specifically indicated that a previous oath (i.e., an oath for a previous matter) can be \"rolled\" onto it (e.g., When she answers \"Amen\" to not having been defiled by this man, she also answers \"Amen\" to not having been defiled by another, etc.), I derive the same for all of the oaths in the Torah. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of sotah, where no previous claim has been made against her, a previous oath is \"rolled\" onto her, then, in instances of thefts, where previous claims have been made, how much more so may previous oaths be \"rolled\" onto them!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:23) \"Then the Cohein shall write the curses (these\"): I might think, all the curses in the Torah (written in the curses of the covenant); it is, therefore, written \"these.\" \"the Cohein\": What is the intent of this (i.e., is it not understood from the context?) For it would follow: It is written here \"and he shall write,\" and it is written elsewhere (Devarim 24:1) \"and he shall write\" (a scroll of divorce). Just as there, any man may write it, so, here, (I would say that) any man may write it. It is, therefore, written \"the Cohein.\" \"and erase it\": (He must write it) on something that can be erased. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the L-rd said: A scroll written in holiness — let it be erased by the waters, then the scrolls of heretics, which inject (into the world) contempt and hatred and envy and contention — how much more so should they be erased from the world! R. Yishmael says: How does one deal with the scrolls of the heretics? He cuts out the \"mentionings\" (of G-d's name) and burns the rest. R. Akiva says: He burns them entire, for they were not written in holiness. \"into a scroll\": From here they ruled: It is not to be written on a tablet, or on paper, nor on hide, but on a scroll (of finished parchment). And he is not to write it with gummed ink or with vitriol, but with ink, it being written \"and erase it into the bitter waters\" — writing that can be erased. \"and erase it into the bitter waters\": the connotation is that the writing makes the waters bitter."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:25) \"And the Cohein shall take from the hand of the woman\": and not from the hand of her representative — If she were in her menstrual period, she did not drink, (being forbidden to enter the azarah at that time). (5:24) \"And he shall make the woman drink\": Why is it written again (Ibid. 27) \"and he shall make her drink the water\"? For if the scroll were erased and she said \"I will not drink,\" they shake her and make her drink perforce. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: (Ibid. 26) \"and then he shall make the woman drink\": What is the intent of this? It is written afterwards \"and he shall make her drink the water\"! (To indicate that) three things are categorically required for (the validity of) the sotah (procedure): the erasure of the scroll, the offering of the fistful, and her acceptance of the oath. If the scroll were erased and she said; I am tamei, the waters are spilled out, the offering is scattered in the beth hadeshen, and the scroll is not valid for the drinking of a different sotah. R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah says: It is valid. \"and he shall wave the offering\": back and forth and up and down. Whence is this derived? From (Shemot 29:23) \"which was waved and which was lifted\": Lifting is hereby likened to waving. Just as waving is back and forth, so, lifting. And just as lifting is up and down, so, waving — whence they ruled: The mitzvah of waving — back and forth, up and down. \"before the L-rd\": in the east (i.e., at the eastern side of the altar [opposite the sanctuary]). Wherever \"before the L-rd\" is written, the east is intended unless specified otherwise. \"and he shall wave the offering before the L-rd, and he shall present it at the (south-west corner of the) altar\" — whereby we are taught that the offering of the sotah requires waving and presentation. (Ibid. 26) \"And the Cohein shall take a fistful from the offering as its 'remembrance,' and he shall smoke it on the altar.\": This refers to the smoking of the fistful, which is called \"remembrance\" (viz. Vayikra 2:2) \"and then he shall make the woman drink the water\": as mentioned above."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:27) \"and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall\": This tells me only of her belly and her thigh. Whence do I derive (the same for) the rest of her limbs? From \"then the blighting waters will enter into her.\" — Let only this be stated, then. Why need it be added \"and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall\"? From that limb whence the sin began, from that limb will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Bereshit 7:23) \"And He blotted out every being upon the face of the ground — from man until beast.\" He who began the sin, from him will the punishment begin! Similarly, (Ibid. 19:11) \"And the men at the entrance of the house they smote with blindness, from small to great.\" They who began the sin, from them the punishment began. Similarly, (Shemot 14:4) \"and I will be honored through (the downfall of) Pharaoh and all of his host.\" Pharaoh began the sin — from him the punishment began. Similarly, (Devarim 15:16) \"Smite shall you smite the inhabitants of that city by the sword. Lay it waste and all that is in it, etc.\" Whence the sin began, the punishment began. Here, too, \"and her belly will swell and her thigh will fall.\" From that limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment began. Now does this not follow a fortiori. If re the attribute of punishment, the weaker attribute — the limb whence the sin began, from it the punishment begins, how much more so re the attribute of benefaction, the stronger attribute, (the limb whence the good began, from it the reward begins!) \"and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people\": They will curse through her — \"May it happen to you as it happened to her!\" \"for an oath\" (see verse 21): They will swear by her — (\"I swear that if, etc.,) may it happen to me as it happen to her!\" And thus is it written (Isaiah 65:15): \"And you (the wicked) will leave your name as an oath for My chosen ones\" — whence we learn that the wicked are an oath for the righteous. And whence do we derive that the righteous are a blessing for the wicked? (Jeremiah 4:2) \"And in it (Israel) will nations bless themselves, and in it will they be praised,\" and (Bereshit 12:3) \"And there will bless themselves in you (Avram) all the families of the earth.\" And it is written (Ibid. 48:20) \"And he blessed them on that day, saying: In you (Ephraim and Menasheh) will Israel bless, etc.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:298) \"And if the woman had not been defiled and she be clean\": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 20:10) \"And a man who lives with another man's wife, etc.\", we learn that only where there were witnesses (to her adultery) and she were forewarned that she is put to death. If there were witnesses, but she had not been forewarned, she is not liable to the death penalty. (I would think that) since she is not liable to the death penalty she is permitted to her husband; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) \"If a man take a woman (as a wife) and cohabit with her … having found in her a thing of nakedness … he shall write her a scroll of divorce, etc.\" — whence we learn that she is forbidden to her husband. Whence is derived (the halachah) in an instance of doubt as to whether or not she has been defiled? From \"And the woman had not been defiled and she be clean.\" Now who defiled her that Scripture must cleanse her? We are being told, then, that since an evil name has gone out against her, she is forbidden to her husband. \"and she be clean\": clean to her husband, clean to the (suspected) cohabitor (i.e., if her husband divorced her or died, he may marry her), and clean vis-à-vis (the eating of) terumah. \"then she shall be absolved\": of the curses and of the oath. \"and she will sow seed\": If she were barren, she conceives. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva said to him: If so, all the barren ones will go astray (and secrete themselves) in order to conceive and the modest (barren) ones will lose out! What, rather, is the intent of \"then she will be absolved and she will sow seed\"? If she had borne only females, she will now bear males; if she had borne only one, she will now bear two; if she had borne swarthy ones, she will now bear fair ones; if she had borne short ones, she will now bear fair ones. R. Shimon says: Would it enter your mind that she is rewarded for transgression (i.e., secreting herself)? Rather, because she had been forbidden (to her husband) for seed before (drinking), it is, therefore, written \"and she will sow seed,\" i.e., she is now permitted for \"seed.\" Variantly: \"and she will sow seed\" — to exclude (from drinking) an eilonith (a wombless woman) or one who is (otherwise) unfit to bear."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:29) \"This is the law of the rancors\": This tells me (that this is the law) only for that time. Whence do I derive (that it is also the law for succeeding generations? From (the construction) \"zoth torath,\" (connoting one law for all generations). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: (\"zoth torath\" is) conventional terminology (for conclusion of a subject, and not indicative of a new learning.) \"for a woman who goes astray under her husband\": to liken the woman to the man and the man to the woman (e.g., if either the man or the woman were blind, she does not drink). — But perhaps (the thrust of \"under her husband\" is) to exclude (from drinking,) a woman awaiting levirate marriage (shomereth yavam). It is, therefore, written (5:12) \"a man, a man\" (twice) to include (in drinking,) a shomereth yavam. — But perhaps I should also include a betrothed woman. It is, therefore, written \"under her husband\" — to exclude a betrothed woman. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says (Ibid. 19) \"under your husband\" — to exclude a shomereth yavam. I would then exclude a shomereth yavam, but I would not exclude a betrothed woman. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"for a woman (connoting a married woman) who goes astray under her husband\" — to exclude one who was (only) betrothed. If so, why is it written \"a man, a man\" — to include the wife of an imbecile, a deaf-mute, a dullard, one who had gone abroad, and one who had been incarcerated, in which instance beth-din forewarn her to the end of disqualifying her from (receiving) her kethubah. I might think, even to the end of making her drink. It is, therefore, written (in that regard) (Ibid. 15) \"Then the man shall bring his wife to the Cohein.\" R. Yossi says also to the end of making her drink when her husband is released from prison."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 5:30) \"Or a man over whom there shall pass a spirit of rancor\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written, viz. 5:14). — From \"and he shall have forewarned his wife,\" (I might think that) this (i.e., forewarning) is optional, or that just as so long as he had not forewarned her, this (making her drink) is optional, then here (5:30), too, making her drink is optional; it is, therefore, written \"Or a man over whom there shall pass a spirit of rancor and he warn his wife, then he shall stand the woman before the L-rd, and the Cohein shall do to her all of this law\" — It is obligatory, and not optional. \"and the Cohein shall do to her all of this law (31) and the man will be clean of sin.\": If he did so, he will be clean of sin; if not, he will not be clean of sin. \"and the man will be clean of sin\": He should not say (if she drinks and dies) \"Woe unto me! I have killed a daughter of Israel, Woe unto me! I have desecrated a daughter of Israel, Woe unto me! I have cohabited with a defiled one.\" This is the intent of \"and he will be clean.\" Shimon b. Azzai says: Scripture here speaks of a woman who is clean (i.e., who has not been defiled); but since she has brought herself to these things (by secreting herself), she, too, shall not escape (some form of) punishment. This is the intent of \"and the man will be free of sin, and that woman will bear her sin.\" Rebbi says: Scripture comes to teach you that it is the end of this woman (one who was defiled, even if a certain merit may suspend her death) to die of that death — \"her belly will swell and her thigh will fall, and the woman will be a curse in the midst of her people.\" Variantly: Why is it written \"and the man will be clean of sin\"? (To teach that) \"when the man is clean of sin, that woman will bear her sin\" — as opposed to (Hoshea 4:14) \"I shall not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your brides, when they fornicate. For they (themselves) betake themselves with the whores and sacrifice with the harlots, and a people that does not understand will fall!\" He said to them: If you yourselves pursue harlotry, the waters, too, will not prove your wives. This is the intent of \"and the man will be clean of sin\" — Of that sin itself!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:1-2) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man or a woman, if he shall declare to vow the vow of a Nazirite, to be a Nazirite to the L-rd\": What is the intent of this section? (i.e., the section of vows has already been stated!) — Because it is written (Ibid. 30:3) \"A man if he vow a vow to the L-rd, or if he take an oath to bind upon his soul, etc.\", whence if he vows (to forbid) something for one day it is forbidden for one day; for two days, it is forbidden for two days; (to forbid) a specific thing, that specific thing is forbidden — I would think that the same is true of Naziritism. It is, therefore, written (here) \"Speak to the children of Israel, etc.\" that if he vowed (Naziritism, to forbid something to himself) for one day or for one moment, it is forbidden to him for thirty days. And he is forbidden to drink wine and to render himself tamei for the dead and to cut his hair. This is the intent of this section. \"a man or a woman\": to equate women with men (in respect to Naziritism). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where minors are equated with adults, (i.e., in respect to Cohanim not rendering themselves tamei for the dead, viz. Vayikra 21:1), women are not equated with men, then here (in respect to Naziritism), where minors are not equated with adults, how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written \"a man or a woman,\" to equate women with men. \"a man\": and not a minor. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, where women are not equated with men (see above), minors are equated with adults, then here, (in respect to Naziritism), where women are equated with men, how much more so should minors be equated with adults! It is, therefore, written \"a man,\" and not a minor. \"if he shall declare\": to include (Naziritism as obtaining with) one who knows how to declare (i.e., one who is cognizant of the import of what he is saying.) From here they ruled: The vows of a girl of eleven years and one day are examined (for such cognizance); of twelve years and one day — her vows stand. The vows of a boy of twelve years and one day are examined; of thirteen years and one day — his vows stand. \"if he declare\": willingly, and not under coercion. — But perhaps even under coercion! — It follows (that they must be willing), viz.: It is written here \"declare,\" and, in respect to vows and gifts (Vayikra 22:21) \"declare.\" Just as there, willingly; here, too, willingly. \"to vow a vow\": I might think that even if he vows to bring an offering he becomes a Nazirite; it is, therefore, written \"to make a Nazirite\" — he must make the vow of a Nazirite. I might think (from \"to make a Nazirite\") that he may make even others Nazirites. It is, therefore, written \"nazir,\" (which connotes that) he makes himself a Nazirite, and not others. If so, why is it written (lit.,) \"nazir, to make a nazir\"? To equate epithets of Naziritism with Naziritism and \"signals\" of Naziritism with Naziritism. This tells me only of Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows? From \"the vow of a Nazirite,\" to equate vows with Naziritism and Naziritism with vows, viz.: Just as in Naziritism, epithets of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, and signals of Naziritism are equated with Naziritism, so, with vows, epithets of vows are equated with vows, and signals of vows are equated with vows. And just as vows are subject to transgression of (Bamidbar 30:3) \"He shall not profane his word\" and (Devarim 23:22) \"You shall not delay to pay it,\" so, Naziritism. And just as with vows a father may void the vows of his daughter, and a husband, the vows of his wife, so, with Naziritism. R. Yehoshua says: \"to make a Nazirite\": (to make) even others (Nazirites, e.g., a father, vis-à-vis his son). \"to make a Nazirite to the L-rd\": It is a mitzvah to become a Nazirite to the L-rd. Shimon Hatzaddik said: I never ate the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become unclean (by contact with a dead body) but once. Once a Nazirite came to me from the south. His eyes were beautiful, he was very handsome, and his hair was wavy. I said to him: \"What prompted you to destroy this beautiful hair?\" (at the end of the Nazirite period). He answered: \"I was a shepherd for my father in my town. Once, while drawing water from the well, I gazed upon my reflection and my evil inclination seized hold of me and threatened to snatch me from the world — whereupon I said to it: 'Empty one, why do you vaunt yourself in a world that is not yours, where you are destined to be consigned to worms and maggots? I swear, I shall shear you in the name of Heaven!'\" I thereupon arose, and, kissing him on the head, said to him: \"May Nazirites like you multiply in Israel, doing the will of the L-rd! Of such as you it is written 'A man … if he shall declare to vow the vow of the Nazirite to be a Nazirite to the L-rd.'\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:3) \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\": (The intent is) to equate wine of mitzvah with non-mitzvah (i.e., optional) wine, as being forbidden to a Nazirite (viz. Ibid. 4). For (without this verse) it would follow that since a mourner is forbidden to drink wine (viz. Devarim 26:14) and a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine, then since I have learned about a mourner that wine of mitzvah (i.e., second-tithe wine) was not equated with optional wine, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted), also, in the instance of a Nazirite, wine of mitzvah is not to be equated with optional wine, (i.e., the second, being forbidden, the first must be permitted, [wherefore the verse is needed to tell us that mitzvah wine, too, is forbidden to a Nazirite]). — No, this may be so in the instance of a mourner, where mitzvah eating was not equated with optional eating, (the first being forbidden, and the second, permitted,) wherefore mitzvah wine was not equated with optional wine. But in the instance of the Nazirite, we would say that just as mitzvah eating was equated with optional eating, so, mitzvah wine should be equated with optional wine, (and both should be forbidden. Why, then, is the verse needed to tell us this?). And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that mitzvah wine is forbidden to a Nazirite,) viz.: If in the instance of an officiating (Cohein in the Temple), where the rind was not equated with the fruit, nor eating with drinking, nor the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, (only the last being forbidden), mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, (both being forbidden, viz. [Vayikra 10:9]), then in the instance of the Nazirite, where the rind was equated with the fruit (both being forbidden), and eating with drinking, and the eating of grapes with the drinking of wine, how much more so, should mitzvah wine be equated with optional wine (and be forbidden!) Why, then, is the verse needed? — No, (i.e., it is needed.) This (i.e., what you have said), may be so with the officiating (Cohein), whose punishment (for drinking) is death, wherefore mitzvah wine was equated with optional wine, whereas in the instance of the Nazirite, whose punishment (for drinking) is not death, we would say that mitzvah wine was not to be equated with optional wine, (and should be permitted.) It must, therefore, be written \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself,\" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\"? Because it is written (Devarim 14:23) \"and you shall eat before the L-rd your G-d … the (second-) tithe of your grain and wine, etc.\", I might think that even Nazirites are included. And how would I satisfy \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\"? With other wines, excluding mitzvah wines. Or even with mitzvah wines. And how would I satisfy \"and you shall eat, etc.\"? With other men, aside from Nazirites. Or even with Nazirites. It is, therefore, written \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\" — to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden.) Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is it written \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\"? For it would follow: Since he (a Nazirite) is forbidden to defile himself (for the dead) and he is forbidden (to drink) wine, then if I learn that (for a Nazirite) a meth-mitzvah [(one who, lacking kin, it is a mitzvah for everyone to bury)] is not equated with a non-meth-mitzvah, then mitzvah wine, likewise, should not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden.) And, further, it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If (dead-body) tumah, which voids (one's elapsed period of Nazaritism) does not equate a meth-mitzvah with a non meth-mitzvah, (it being a mitzvah for a Nazirite to render himself tamei for the first, but forbidden to do so for the second), how much more so should mitzvah wine, which does not void (his lapsed Naziritism) not be equated with optional wine (to be forbidden)! It must, therefore, be written \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself\" to equate mitzvah wine with optional wine (as forbidden). \"From yayin (wine) and shechar he shall separate himself\": Now yayin is shechar, and shechar is yayin! — But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues (i.e., synonymously). Similarly: Shechitah (slaughtering) is zevichah, and zevichah is shechitah. Kemitzah (taking the fistful) is haramah, and haramah is kemitzah. Amuka (lowland) is shefelah, and shefelah is amukah. Oth (a sign) is mofeth, and mofeth is oth — but the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. Here, too — \"From yayin and shechar he shall separate himself\": Now yayin is shechar and shechar is yayin. But the Torah (sometimes) speaks in two tongues. R. Elazar Hakappar says: \"yayin\" is diluted; shechar is undiluted. You say this, but perhaps the reverse is the case! — From(Bamidbar 28:7) \"And its libation a fourth of a hin for the one lamb. On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured (connoting \"undiluted\"), a pouring of shechar to the L-rd,\" you must deduce that \"yayin\" is diluted, and \"shechar,\" undiluted. \"From wine and strong drink yazir\": \"nezirah\" in all places connotes separation, viz. (Vayikra 22:2) \"and they shall separate (\"veyinazru\") from the holy things of the children of Israel,\" and (Ibid. 25:5) \"The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap (in the sabbatical year), and the guarded (\"nezirecha,\" lit., \"separated\") grapes of your vine you shall not gather,\" and (Hoshea 9:10)) \"And they came to Baal-peor and 'separated themselves' ('vayinazru') to shame,\" and (Zechariah 7:3) \"Shall I weep in the fifth month (Tisha B'av), separating myself (\"hinazer\"), etc.\" We find, then, that in all places \"nezirah\" connotes separation. \"From wine and shechar he shall separate himself\": I might think, (even) from selling wine or healing (himself with it); it is, therefore, written \"he shall not drink,\" but he is permitted to sell it or to heal himself with it. \"Vinegar of wine and vinegar of shechar he shall not drink\": We are hereby taught that vinegar is equated with wine. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since an officiating Cohein may not drink wine, then if I have learned that in his case vinegar is not equated with wine, then for a Nazirite, too, vinegar should not be equated with wine. And, furthermore, this should follow a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) an officiating Cohein, whose punishment (for drinking wine) is death, vinegar is not equated with wine, then (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose punishment is not death, how much more so should vinegar not be equated with wine! (The verse then is needed) to tell us that vinegar is equated with wine. And just as mitzvah wine is equated with optional wine, so, mitzvah vinegar (i.e., second-tithe vinegar) is equated with optional vinegar. What is the intent of \"and any steeping of grapes he shall not eat\"? We are hereby taught that if he steeped grapes in water, and the taste (of the grapes) was transmitted to the water, it is forbidden. And this serves as a paradigm for everything forbidden by the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to derivation of benefit (e.g., selling and healing), and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), the taste (of the forbidden substance) was regarded as the substance itself, then the other prohibitions in the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so should the taste (of the forbidden substance) be regarded as the substance itself! \"and grapes\": Why is this written? It follows (logically) even without being stated, viz.: If he is liable for what issues from the fruit (i.e., wine), should he not be liable for the fruit itself! Rather, what is the intent of \"wet\" grapes\"? To include (as forbidden) half-ripe grapes. You say \"to include half-ripe grapes. But perhaps its intent is to exclude dry grapes? (This cannot be) for \"and dry\" includes dry grapes. What, then, is the intent of \"wet\"? For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: He is liable for wine and he is liable for grapes. Just as wine is a finished fruit (i.e., product), so, grapes must be a finished product (and not half-ripe). It is, therefore, written \"wet\" to include half-ripe grapes (as forbidden). Issi b. Yehudah says: What is the intent of \"grapes wet and dry\"? To impose liability for each in itself (i.e., eating \"wet\" and \"dry\" grapes together is regarded as two separate transgressions though one kind of fruit is eaten). (And this serves as a paradigm for all prohibitions in the Torah.) Let it be written \"and dry grapes he shall not eat\" (i.e., \"wet\" is understood from \"grapes itself,\" and only \"dry\" need be written.) If it were stated thus, all dried fruits would be understood (to be forbidden). \"wet\" and \"dry\" (in this context) implies what issues from the vine wet and then dried up."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:4) \"All the days of his Naziritism, of all that is made from the grape-vine, from the kernels to the husk, he shall not eat\": Scripture hereby apprises us that if he ate an olive-size of all of them (kernel and husk combined), he receives forty lashes. And this serves as a paradigm for all of the prohibitions of the Torah, viz.: If (in the instance of) a Nazirite, whose prohibition (re wine) is not for all time, (but only for the period of his Naziritism), and whose prohibition does not extend to the derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is subject to release (by absolution of his Naziritism), separate elements (in an injunction) combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size, then the other prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibitions are for all time, and whose prohibition extends to derivation of benefit, and whose prohibition is not subject to release — how much more so do they combine with each other to (form the forbidden) olive-size! \"of all that is made from the grape-vine\": I might think that leaves and sprouts, too, (are included); it is, therefore, written \"from the kernels to the husk\": Just as the specific instance is of fruit (kernel) and residue of fruit (husk), so, only these are included (in the prohibition), to exclude leaves and sprouts, (which do not satisfy these parameters). R. Eliezer says: Leaves and sprouts are also subsumed in \"of all that is made from the grape-vine.\" \"from the chartzanim to the zag he shall not eat\": The minimum (amount for transgression) — two kernels, one husk. These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah. Which are the chartzanim and which are the zagim? \"chartzanim\" are the outer, and \"zagim\" are the inner. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: So that you not err, (they are) like the bells (\"zugim\") of an animal: the outer (part) is the \"zag\"; the inner (the clapper) is the \"inbal.\" \"From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat\": We are hereby apprised that \"pained eating\" (as in eating kernels and husk) does not free him from liability. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If for the graver — Yom Kippur — one is not liable for \"pained eating,\" should this not be so for the lesser, Naziritism? It is, therefore, written \"From the kernels to the husk he shall not eat.\": Why is this written\" (i.e., it may be derived from the preceding verse, viz.:) \"of all that is made of the grape-vine … he shall not eat\" — general. \"From wine and strong drink he shall separate himself. Vinegar of wine and vinegar of strong drink he shall not drink\" — particular. (We have here an instance of) general-particular. (The rule is:) There is subsumed in the general only what is in the particular. Just as the particular is \"fruit (wine) and residue of fruit (vinegar),\" so, I derive (as forbidden) anything which is \"fruit and residue of fruit\" — including kernels and husk, which satisfy that parameter! (Why, then is \"from the kernels to the husk\" needed?) — Perhaps, just as the particular is an \"actual\" fruit, so, I may derive only an \"actual\" fruit. — (No!) Which \"actual\" fruit has not been mentioned? You must revert, then, to the original formulation, (and the question remains:) If I can derive it from the rule, why need \"from the kernels to the husk\" be stated? We are hereby taught that (in the instance of) a \"general\" which adds to the \"particular,\" what is to be derived is not (of necessity) to be of the same nature as the \"particular\" to remove it from the \"general\" (formulation) unless Scripture indicates it specifically, as it does in the instance of the Nazirite."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:5) \"All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head.\"): Scripture now leaves the subject of wine and comes to speak of shaving. \"All the days of the vow of his Naziritism\": His vow (i.e., his offerings) is contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If he vows to be a Nazirite, then after his (period of) Naziritism he must bring his offerings), and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the offering, he need not become a Nazirite.) \"a blade shall not pass over his head\": to equate the shaver with the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves him is liable, as is the shaved one himself). \"a blade shall not pass over his head\": This tells me only of a blade. Whence do I derive that he also receives forty lashes for tearing, plucking, and trimming? From \"holy shall he be,\" in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks (only) of a blade. If he tore, plucked, or trimmed, he does not receive stripes. \"until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd\": Whence is it derived that if one vows to be a Nazirite without qualifying (for how long), he shaves on the thirty-first day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth day he has fulfilled his obligations? From \"until the fulfillment of the day of his Naziritism to the L-rd\" — and they have been fulfilled. I might think that even if he vowed a one hundred day Naziritism and he shaved on the thirty-first day he has fulfilled his obligation; it is, therefore, written \"until the fulfillment of his days,\" and he has not yet fulfilled them. This tells me (only) of one whose (period of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who vowed \"eternal\" Naziritism (i.e., that he must be a Nazirite all of his days)? From \"all the days of the vow of his Naziritism … holy shall he be.\" \"holy shall he be\": You say that this refers to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair. But perhaps it refers to the holiness of the body (i.e., not to become defiled by the dead). (This is not so, for) (Ibid. 8) \"He is holy to the L-rd\" speaks of holiness of the body. How, then, am I to understand \"holy shall he be\"? As referring to holiness of the hair, \"holy shall he be\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18) \"And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting,\" I would think that only the hair of one who shaves as prescribed is forbidden and imposes constraints. How would I know (that the same applies) if vandals shaved him? From \"holy shall he be\" — in any event. R. Yossi says: Why is it written \"holy shall he be\"? Because it is written \"he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head,\" I might think (that Naziritism obtains only) with one who has hair. Whence do I derive (that it also obtains) with one who does not have hair? From \"holy shall he be\" — in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is not needed (for the above), for it is written (Ibid. 7) \"for the crown of his G-d is on his head\" — whether or not he has hair. What, then, is the intent of \"holy shall he be\"? As we stated above (in respect to \"eternal\" Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is thirty days, it being written \"holy shall he be (\"yiheyeh\"): The numerical equivalent of \"yiheyeh\" is thirty. \"he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head.\" Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written \"a blade shall not pass over his head.\") It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9) \"And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair.\" This implies even a Nazirite (leper). And how would I understand \"he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head\"? As applying to other Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or, perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is, therefore, written \"he shall let grow the locks ('pera') of the hair of his head.\" From here you learn of the leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra 13:45) \"And his head shall be parua\" that \"parua\" means \"grown long.\" You say it means that, but perhaps it is to be taken literally (as meaning \"uncovered.\") You, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here (in respect to a leper) \"parua,\" and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite) \"parua\" (i.e., \"pera,\" like \"parua\"). Just as there (re Nazirite), \"parua\" means growing the hair, so, \"parua\" here (re leper) means growing the hair. \"All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head.\"): (A Nazirite who shaved his head at the end of his period of Naziritism [before he brought the offering, etc.] is liable,) it being written \"All the days of the vow of his Naziritism a blade shall not pass over his head\" — to include the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering (as in the above-cited instance) as equivalent (for liability) to the days in the midst of his Naziritism. — But perhaps he is liable (for shaving his head) only if he does so before he completes his period of Naziritism! — (No,) it follows (that this is not so,) viz.: Since he is forbidden to drink wine and he is forbidden to shave, if I have learned about wine that the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering were equated with the days in the midst of the period of his Naziritism, the same must be true of shaving. And, furthermore, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which does not void (the count of his preceding Nazirite days), the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of his offering were equated (for liability) with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period, then re shaving, which does void (the Nazirite count), how much more so should this be true! — (No,) this may be true of the drinking of wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was permitted — wherefore the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period — but would you say the same for shaving, where an act in its category (the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day) was permitted — wherefore we would say that the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were not equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! — (No!) This is refuted by the instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling himself with a dead body), where though there is an act in its category which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's defiling himself for a meth mitzvah [one who has no kin to bury him]), still the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! And this would indicate about shaving, that even though there is an act in its category which is permitted, still, the days after the Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period. — No, this may be true of tumah, which voids the whole (previous) count, which is not so with shaving, which does not void the whole. I have not succeeded (in proving the equality) with my a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 20) \"and thereafter (i.e., after bringing the offering), the Nazirite may drink wine.\" Now may a Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is that) it (the word \"Nazirite\") is \"extra\" to signal a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: it is written here (in respect to shaving [6:5]) \"nazir,\" and it is written elsewhere (20) \"nazir\" (in respect to the drinking of wine). Just as with (the \"extra\") \"nazir\" there, the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period, so, with shaving. (6:5) \"He shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head.\" Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid.] \"a blade shall not pass over his head until the fulfillment of the days when he is a Nazirite to the L-rd.\") From \"until the fulfillment of the days,\" I would think that this (\"fulfillment\") is satisfied by a minimum of two days; it is, therefore, written \"He shall let grow the hair of the locks of his head.\" How long does this take? Not less than thirty days. But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a month and above — even a month and one day or a month and two days, (he is a Nazirite for any period superadded.)"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:6) \"All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.\" Scripture now leaves the subject of shaving and comes to speak of tumah. \"upon the soul … he shall not come\": I might think that even beasts are herein subsumed, as in (Vayikra 24:18) \"One who strikes the soul of a beast, etc.\"; it is, therefore, written: \"upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come,\" Scripture referring to a human being. R. Yishmael says: This (proof) is not needed, for it is written \"he shall not come.\" Scripture is speaking of a (dead) soul that confers tumah by entry (into his tent, [i.e., the soul of a man, and not that of a beast]). (6:7) \"For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei\" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah (one who has no one to bury him). Why need this be stated? It is understood a fortiori, viz.: If the high-priest, whose holiness is permanent, becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, how much more so, a Nazirite, whose holiness is temporary! — No, this may be true of a high-priest, who does not bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he becomes tamei for a meth-mitzvah, as opposed to a Nazirite, who does bring an offering for his uncleanliness — wherefore he should not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah! It must, therefore, be written \"For his father and his mother he shall not become tamei\" — but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But perhaps the intent of the verse is: \"For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei,\" but he does become for other dead! — Would you say such a thing? If an ordinary Cohein, who does become tamei for his kin, may not become tamei for other dead, how much more so a Nazirite, who may not become tamei for his kin! What, then, is the intent of \"For his father and his mother … he shall not become tamei? He does not become tamei for his father and his mother, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. — But even without this verse, I can derive it by reasoning, viz.: There is a general rule for a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11: \"And upon all souls of the dead he shall not come\"), and there is a general rule for a Nazirite (\"Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.\") Just as with the general rule for the high-priest, he may not become tamei for kin, so with the general rule for the Nazirite, he may not become tamei for kin. You derive it from the high-priest, but I can derive it from an ordinary priest, viz.: There is a general rule for an ordinary priest and there is a general rule for a Nazirite. Just as with the general rule for the ordinary priest he does become tamei for kin, so, with the general rule for the Nazirite, he should become tamei for kin. It must, therefore, be written \"For his father and his mother; for his brother and for his sister, he shall not become tamei, etc.\" R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 21:11): \"souls\" — these are the distant (i.e., non-kin); \"the dead\" — these are kin; \"for his (the high-priest's) father and his mother\" — For his father and his mother he does not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. (Bamidbar 6:7) \"for his brother\": If he were a high-priest or a Nazirite, he may not become tamei, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. \"and for his sister\": What is the intent of this? If one (an ordinary Cohein) were going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he hears that one of his kin had died, I might think that he should become tamei for them; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"he shall not become tamei.\" I might think that he should (also) not become tamei for a meth-mitzvah; it is, therefore, written \"and for his sister\" — He does not become tamei for his sister, but he does become tamei for a meth-mitzvah. But (a verse) is not needed for his (young) son and daughter; for minors cannot become Nazirites. \"he shall not become tamei for them in their death\": In their death he does not become tamei for them, but he does become tamei for them in their leprous or zivah (genital discharge) state. This tells me only of a Nazirite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a high-priest? It is written in respect to a high-priest (Vayikra 21:11) \"for his mother (he shall not) become tamei.\" This is superfluous, for I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may become tamei for his father's brother, a high-priest may not become tamei for his father, then in an instance where an ordinary Cohein may not become tamei for his father's brother, how much more so may a high-priest not become tamei for his father! If I can derive it, then, a fortiori, why is the verse \"for his mother, etc.\" needed in respect to a high-priest? It is \"extra,\" to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written \"his mother\" here (in respect to a high-priest), and it is written \"his mother\" elsewhere (in respect to a Nazirite). Just as there he does become tamei (for them) in their leprous or zivah state, so, here. Variantly: \"He shall not become tamei for them in their death\": In their death he may not become tamei for them, but he may stand at their eulogy and in the mourner's row. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"for the crown of his G-d is on his head\": whether or not he has hair. These are the words of R. Yonathan."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:8) \"All the days of his Naziritism, holy is he to the L-rd.\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (5) \"until the fulfillment of the days,\" I might think (that the interdict of shaving applies) only to one whose Naziritism has a term. Whence do I derive (the same for) a life-long Nazirite? To this end it is written \"All the days of his Naziritism.\" \"holy is he to the L-rd\": This applies to holiness of the body (vis-à-vis the interdict of becoming tamei.) — But perhaps it applies to the holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair! — (5) \"holy shall he be\" already refers to the holiness of the hair. How, then, am I to understand \"holy is he to the L-rd\"? As referring to holiness of the body."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:9) \"And if one die on him, etc.\": to exclude a doubt (i.e., a possibility of one's having died on him.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah) where inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness (viz. (Bamidbar 5:13), doubt (i.e., the possibility of her having been adulterous while closeted) was equated with certainty, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where inadvertency was equated with wilfullness, how much more so should doubt be equated with certainty! It is, therefore, written \"And if one died on him\" (i.e., to his certain knowledge) — to exclude an instance of doubt. \"of an instant\": to include (his shaving and bringing an offering) (if he becomes tamei) inadvertently. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (in the instance of sotah), where doubt was equated with certainty, inadvertency was not equated with wilfullness, then here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt was not equated with certainty, how much more so should inadvertency not be equated with wilfullness! It is, therefore, written \"of an instant\" (i.e., inadvertently). \"suddenly\": to include (an instance of his becoming tamei) unwittingly. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If, (in the instance of sotah), where doubt is equated with certainty, unwittingness (of his being forbidden to her) is not equated with wittingness, here, (in the instance of the Nazirite), where doubt (of his having become tamei) is not equated with certainty, how much more so should unwittingness (of his having become tamei) not be equated with wittingness! And whence is it derived that he is liable (to shave and bring an offering) for wilfullness (i.e., for wilfully having become tamei)? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of swearing (falsely) in respect to (having received) a pledge (viz. Vayikra 5:22), where he is not liable (to bring an offering) for unwittingness, he is liable for wilfullness, then here (in the instance of the Nazirite), where he is liable for unwittingness, how much more so is he liable for wilfullness! — No, this may be true of swearing in respect to a pledge, where he does not receive stripes, as opposed to the instance of the Nazirite, where he does receive stripes. And since he receives stripes, he should not bring an offering. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:11) \"and he (the Cohein) shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul.\" These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says \"of an instant\": This refers to unwittingness. \"suddenly\": This refers to inadvertency.",
            " \"and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism\": Scripture here speaks of one who was clean (when he began his Nazirite count) and became unclean. It is he who must remove his hair and bring an offering, and not one who undertook Naziritism in the cemetery (in which instance he was already unclean.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one who was clean and became tamei is liable to remove his hair and to bring an offering, how much more so one who was unclean in the beginning! It is, therefore, written (to negate this) \"and he make unclean the head of his Naziritism.\" \"then he shall shave his head\": It is his head that he shaves, and not all of his (bodily) hair. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a leper shaves and brings an offering and a Nazirite shaves and brings an offering, then if I learned of a leper that he shaves all of his hair, then a Nazirite, too, should shave all of his hair. — No, this may be true of a leper, who undergoes a second shaving (Vayikra 14:9), wherefore he shaves all of his hair. Would you say the same for a Nazirite, who does not shave a second shaving? — wherefore he should not shave all of his hair. — This is refuted by the Levites, who, though they do not undergo a second shaving, shave all of their hair. It must, therefore, be written \"then he shall shave his head\" — It is his head that he shaves and not all of his hair. (\"then he shall shave his head) on the day of his cleansing\": on the day of his sprinkling (of the waters of the red heifer [viz. Bamidbar 19:17]). You say, on the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh, but perhaps (\"cleansing\" refers to) the day of his offering, on the eighth; it is, therefore, written \"on the seventh.\" If \"on the seventh,\" (I might think that he shaves) even if the waters have not been sprinkled; it is, therefore, written (\"then he shall shave\") on the day of his cleansing\" — the day of his sprinkling, on the seventh. This tells me only of the seventh. Whence do I derive the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth (as also valid for shaving)? From \"he shall shave it\" (— in any event). This (\"on the day\") tells me only of the daytime. Whence do I derive the night (as also valid)? From \"he shall shave it.\" This tells me only of the shaving for tumah. Whence do I derive (the same for) the shaving of cleanliness (Ibid. 18)? From \"he shall shave it.\" \"he shall shave it, and on the eighth day he shall bring, etc.\" From here (i.e., from the juxtaposition) they ruled: What is the procedure of the shaving for tumah? First he shaves and then he brings the offering. And if he brought the offering and then shaved, he has not fulfilled his obligation."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:10) \"And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc.\": to exclude the seventh day. You say, to exclude the seventh day; but perhaps, to exclude the ninth day? Would you say that? If (the eighth day), which is close to the forbidden (seventh day), is permitted, how much more so should (the ninth day), which is close to the permitted (eighth day) be permitted! — This is refuted by the time for eating the Paschal offering, where the time (the night of the fifteenth of Nissan), which is close to the forbidden (the day preceding that night) is permitted, and (after midnight on the night of the fifteenth), which is close to the permitted, is forbidden. Do not wonder, then, about this (forbidding of the offering on the ninth day) that even though what is close to the forbidden is permitted, what is close to the permitted is forbidden. We have not succeeded (with this argument). Let us derive it from the offered (i.e., the animals offered on the altar.) A time has been fixed for the offered (viz. Vayikra 22:17) \"From the eighth day (of its birth) on it shall be accepted as a fire-offering\"), and a time has been fixed for the offerers (\"And on the eighth day he shall bring, etc.\" Just as with the offered, the eighth day and beyond was permitted, so, with the offerers. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with the offered, where Scripture enumerates many that are unfit (for offerings), it validates (offerings) of the eighth day and beyond, how much more so with the offerers, where Scripture did not enumerate many that are unfit, should (offering) be validated from the eighth day and beyond! — No, this may be so with the offered, this time obtaining with all offerings, wherefore the eighth day and beyond was permitted, would you say the same for the offerers, where this time does not obtain for all, (but only for the Nazirites) — wherefore it would not be permitted from the eighth day on. I have not succeeded with ratiocination; I derive it by identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written here (in the instance of the Nazirite) \"the eighth day,\" and elsewhere (in the instance of the offerings), \"the eighth day.\" Just as there, the eighth and beyond is validated, so, here. ",
            " \"two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\" — whence they ruled: Turtle-doves cannot be substituted for pigeons nor pigeons for turtle-doves. \"to the Cohein, to the door of the tent of meeting\": We are hereby taught that it is his obligation to care for them until he brings them to the door of the tent of meeting."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:11) \"And the Cohein shall make one a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering\": The Cohein shall designate them; one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. This tells me of designation by the Cohein. Whence do I derive designation by the owner? Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If one (the Cohein), who is not permitted to dedicate it (as an offering), is permitted to designate it, then one (the owner), who is permitted to dedicate it, how much more so is he permitted to designate it! And thus, (that designation is by the owner) is it written in respect to a woman who has given birth (Vayikra 12:8) \"Then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering\" — whence we find that there is designation by the Cohein and designation by the owner — whence we find that there is an unqualified ken (the couple of sacrificial birds, [in the instance of the Nazirite, where the Cohein designates them]) and a qualified ken, (in the instance of the child-bearing woman, where she herself designates them, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering.) \"and he shall atone for him for having sinned against the soul\": Now against which soul did he sin that he needs atonement? (His sin is) that he deprived himself of wine. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who deprives himself of wine needs atonement, how much more so, one who deprives himself of everything (by fasting)! R. Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of a Nazirite who made himself tamei (by a dead body), it being written \"and he shall atone for him by having sinned (i.e., for having defiled himself) by the soul\" — a dead soul. \"and he shall make holy his head on that day\": On the day of his shaving. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. Yehudah says: On the day of the bringing of his offerings."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:12) \"And he shall devote to the L-rd the days of his Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb of the first-year as a guilt-offering\"): What is the intent of this? Because we find in respect to all the guilt-offerings of the Torah that they are categorical (requirements for the effecting of a new condition), I might think that this (guilt-offering of the Nazirite) is also categorical (in respect to the resumption of his Naziritism), it is, therefore, written \"and he shall devote … and he shall bring, etc.\" Though he has not yet brought (the guilt-offering), he may re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: This, too, is categorical, it being written \"And he shall devote to the L-rd, etc.\" (the verse being understood as ) \"When (shall he devote to the L-rd)?\" when he has brought a lamb of the first year as a guilt-offering. \"and the first days shall fall off\": Whence is it derived that if one declares himself a Nazirite for a hundred days and he becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth day, he voids all (of the previous count)? From \"and the first days shall fall off\" — One who has later days voids (the first days). Perhaps even one who becomes tamei on the hundredth day voids all (of the previous count). It is, therefore, written \"and the first days shall fall off\" — One who has later days voids (the first days), but this one has no later days. Perhaps even if he becomes tamei in the beginning of the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he voids all. It is, therefore, written \"and the first days shall fall off\" — One who has first \"days\" (plural), voids, but this one does not have (them). \"because his Naziritism was tamei\": Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If tumah (i.e., making himself tamei) is forbidden and shaving is forbidden, if I have learned that tumah voids all, shaving, too, should void all. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then shaving, where the shaver (of a Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself), how much more so should he void all! It is, therefore, written \"because his Naziritism was tamei\" — Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all, (but just the first thirty days). This (6:11 \"and he shall hallow his head to that day\") tells me only that the days of his tumah are not counted towards his Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) the days of his confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein quarantined him, and the plague-spot spread, and he were confirmed as tamei — Whence do I derive that the days of his confirmation are not counted towards his Naziritism?) And it follows (that they should not be counted, viz.: Since the days of his (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and the bringing of an offering, as do the days of confirmation (as a leper), then if I have learned about the days of his tumah that they are not counted towards his Naziritism, so should I learn about the days of his confirmation (as a leper). — No, this may be true of the days of his tumah, which void the preceding days, wherefore they are not counted towards his Naziritism. But would you say the same for the days of his confirmation, which do not void the preceding days? — wherefore they should be counted! Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that they should not be counted), viz.: If one who undertakes Naziritism in the cemetery, whose hair is susceptible of shaving (for new Naziritism after he leaves the cemetery) — If his preceding days are not counted towards his Naziritism, then the days of his (leprosy) confirmation, when his hair is not susceptible of the shaving for Naziritism, how much more so should they not be counted. And the same (i.e., that they are not counted towards his Naziritism) is true for the days of his counting (seven days outside of his tent, Vayikra 14:8).",
            " Or, (perhaps we should say): Just as the days of his confirmation are not counted, so, the days of his quarantine should not be counted. And this would follow, viz.: Just as the days of his confirmation are subject to the tumah of mishkav (the couch) and moshav (the seat [of the leper]), as are the days of his quarantine, then if I have learned about the days of his confirmation that they are not counted (towards his Naziritism), so, should I learn about the days of his quarantine. — No, this may be true of the days of his confirmation, which require shaving and an offering (for his leprosy), wherefore they are not counted (towards his Naziritism). But would you say (the same for) the days of his quarantine, which do not require shaving or an offering (for his leprosy)? — wherefore they should be counted. From here they ruled: The days of the confirmation of a leper and the (seven) days of his counting are not counted (towards his Naziritism), but the days of zav and zavah (a man and a woman with a genital discharge) and the days of quarantine of a leper are counted (towards his Naziritism).",
            " (6:6) \"All the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd, (upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come.\"): to equate the days after his Naziritism with the days in the midst of his Naziritism until he brings the offering. (i.e., If he undertook a thirty-day Naziritism and completed it but had not yet brought an offering, he may not become tamei for the dead until he does so.) Or, perhaps he is liable for tumah only until he completes his period of Naziritism, (even if he has not yet brought the offering.) You reason (as follows): Since a Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine and to become tamei, then if I have learned re wine that the days after his Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of his Naziritism until he brings the offering, so, re tumah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with wine, which does not void (the count), the days after the Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism until he brings the offering, how much more so (should this obtain) with tumah, which does void the count! — No, this may be so with wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine) is permitted (to a Nazirite,) wherefore the days after the Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism — as opposed to tumah, where an act in its category (i.e., meth-mitzvah) is permitted — wherefore the days after the Naziritism are not to be equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering. This is refuted by shaving (i.e., the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day), where an act in its category (the category of shaving) is permitted, in spite of which the days after the Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If with shaving, which does not void the whole (count), the days after the Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering, then with tumah, which does void the whole, how much more so! — No, this may be so with shaving, where the shaver was equated (for liability) with the shaved one (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself) — wherefore this equation was made, as opposed to tumah, where the defiler was not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who defiles himself) — wherefore the days after the Naziritism are not to be equated with the days before the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering. — This is refuted by (the instance of) wine, where one who causes the Nazirite to drink was not equated (for liability) with the drinker (i.e., the Nazirite himself), in spite of which the equation was made. And this would indicate re tumah, that even though the defiler is not equated with the defiled, the days after the Naziritism are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering. —- And the argument goes round and round. It is, therefore, written (6:20) \"… and then (after the offering) the Nazirite may drink wine.\" Now may a Nazirite drink wine? Rather, the verse is \"extra\" to the end of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: It is written here (12) (in respect to tumah) \"Nazirite,\" and there (20) (in respect to wine) \"Nazirite.\" Just as there, the days after the Naziritism are equated with the days in the midst of the Naziritism before the bringing of the offering, so, there, (in respect to tumah)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:13) \"This is the law of the Nazirite\": \"This,\" for the offering of purity (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of purity) or also for the offering of tumah (i.e., when the Nazirite is in a state of tumah)? (Ibid.) \"On the day of the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism\" — Scripture is speaking only of one who has an end to his Naziritism (i.e., a thirty-day Naziritism, a Naziritism of purity) \"This is the law of the Nazirite\": (i.e., the offerings that follow) obtain with both a Nazirite of \"days\" and with an \"eternal\" Nazirite. \"yavi otho (to the door of the tent of meeting\"): Now do others bring him? ([this being the usual connotation of \"yavi otho\"]). Does he not bring (i.e., present) himself? — This is one of the three ethim (as in \"otho\") which R. Yishmael would expound in the Torah as (being reflexive,) \"himself\" (rather than accusative, \"it\" or \"him\"). Similarly, (Vayikra 22:16) \"And they will bear otham the sin of guilt\": Now do others bear them? Is it not they who bear upon themselves, etc.? Similarly, (Devarim 34:6) \"And he buried otho in the valley.\" Now did others bury him? Did he not bury himself? Here, too, \"yavi otho\" — he brings (i.e., presents) himself, and others do not bring him."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:14) \"And he shall offer up his sacrifice to the L-rd: one lamb of the first year, whole\": to exclude one that is blemished. \"and one ewe-lamb of the first year, whole\": to exclude one that is blemished. \"and one ram, whole\": to exclude one that is blemished. We are hereby taught that the Nazirite requires three (mutually exclusive) animals (i.e., each is a mitzvah in itself)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:150 \"And a basket of unleavened bread\": general (any kind); \"fine flour, cake mixed with oil\": particular. general-particular (The rule is:) There obtains in the general only what is in the particular. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since a thanksgiving offering requires bread and the Nazirite ram requires bread, then if I have learned that one thanksgiving offering requires four kinds, then the Nazirite ram should also require four kinds; it is, therefore, written \"and a basket of unleavened bread\": general; \"fine flour, cakes mixed with oil\": particular. general-particular (The rule is:) There obtains in the general only what is in the particular. \"and their meal-offering and their peace-offerings\": for the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings.\" — But perhaps also for the sin-offering and for the guilt-offering (of the Nazirite who has become tamei). And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: Since a leper shaves and brings an offering and a Nazirite shaves and brings an offering, then just as the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper require libations, so should those of a Nazirite require libations; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) \"And the ram shall he offer as a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L-rd for the basket of unleavened bread, and the Cohein shall offer its (the ram's) meal-offering and its drink-offering.\" The ram was included in the general rule (\"and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings,\") and it departed from the general rule (for special mention) to teach something about the rule itself, viz.: Just as the ram, which is distinct in being offered for vow and gift requires drink-offerings, so, all offerings for vow and gift require drink-offerings — to exclude the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, which, not being offered for vow and gift, do not require drink-offerings. Variantly: Since it (the ram) was included in the general rule, and it departed (from that rule) to teach about the bread, Scripture returned it to its rule."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:18) \"And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting\": Scripture here speaks of peace-offerings (i.e., that the Nazirite shaves after the sacrifice of the peace-offerings), it being written of them (Vayikra 3:2) \"and he shall slaughter it at the door of the tent of meeting.\" You say this, but perhaps the verse is to be taken literally, (i.e., that he shaves at the door of the tent of meeting. If you say this, this is demeaning. Scripture states (Shemot 20:23): \"Do not go up by steps, (but by a smooth ramp) upon My altar, so that your nakedness not be revealed upon it (by your having to take relatively long strides) — how much more so should he not shave (at the door of the tent of meeting)! What, then, is the intent of \"And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting\"? Scripture refers here to the sacrifice of the peace-offerings (as above). R. Yitzchak says: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. You say this? Perhaps it refers to (shaving at) the door of the tent of meeting, literally. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism, etc.\" In the place (the room) where he cooks it (the peace-offerings), there shall he shave. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: \"And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting.\" If the door was not open, he would not shave. \"and he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism and he shall place it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" This tells me only of the peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (that he can do the same) under the sin-offering and under the guilt-offering? From \"under the sacrifice\" — in any event. This tells me only of (his shaving his hair in) the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for (his doing so) outside it? From \"and he shall place it on the fire\" — in any event."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:19) \"And the Cohein shall take the cooked (\"beshelah\") shoulder of the ram\": \"beshelah\" connotes \"whole\" (i.e., it is first cooked and then separated from the ram.) R. Shimon b. Yochai says: \"beshelah\" implies only that it must be cooked together with the ram, (but it is separated before the cooking.) \"and one unleavened cake\": If it were broken or part were missing, it is invalid. \"and one unleavened wafer\": If it were broken or part were missing it is invalid. \"and he shall place them on the palms of the Nazirite after his shaving of (the head of) his Naziritism.\": This is after his shaving, but the bringing of the offerings is not after his shaving."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:20) \"And the Cohein shall lift them, a lifting before the L-rd\": back and forth and up and down, as it is written (Shemot 29:27) \"which was waved and which was lifted.\" Lifting is being compared to waving. Just as waving is back and forth, so, lifting; and just as lifting is up and down, so, waving — whence they ruled: the mitzvah of waving — back and forth, up and down. (Ibid.) \"before the L-rd\": in the east. For wherever \"before the L-rd\" is written, in the east is understood unless it is specified otherwise. \"It is holy to the Cohein, in addition to the breast of waving and the thigh of lifting\": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 7:34]) \"For the breast of waving, etc.\") For in \"For the breast of waving and the thigh of the lifting have I taken from the children of Israel from their peace-offerings,\" the peace-offerings of the Nazirite are also subsumed, and Scripture (here) removed them from their context for the ram's shoulder requirement. This tells me only of the latter. Whence do I derive (the same for) the breast and the thigh? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If individual peace-offerings, which do not require the giving (to the Cohein) of the shoulder, do require the (giving of) breast and thigh, then the Nazirite peace-offerings, which do require the giving of the shoulder, how much more so do they require the giving of breast and thigh! Now if I can derive this a fortiori, why need it be written (Ibid.) \"It (the shoulder) is holy to the Cohein, in addition to the breast of waving and the thigh of lifting\"? We are hereby apprised that every thing (in this instance, Nazirite peace-offerings) which was included in a general formulation and departed from that formulation for the sake of a new learning (in this instance, the giving of the shoulder) may not be returned to its general formulation until Scripture explicitly does so."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:21) \"This is the law of the Nazirite\": This (i.e., what we have learned of the offerings) tells me only of the time (of the Temple, when there are offerings). Whence do we derive (that Naziritism obtains) in all generations? From \"This is the (perpetual) law.\" These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This (i.e., \"This is the law\") is stated by way of summation. \"his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism\": i.e., his offering to the L-rd is contingent upon his Naziritism, and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his offering (i.e., if he vows to bring the offering, he does not thereby become a Nazirite.) \"his offering to the L-rd for his Naziritism\": and not the offering of others for his Naziritism (i.e., if he said \"I will be a Nazirite on condition that others bring the Nazirite offering,\" he has said nothing.) \"aside from what his hand attains\": We are hereby apprised that if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred burnt-offerings and a hundred peace-offerings, I recite over him \"According to his vow that he vows thus shall he do.\" I might think (that the same applies) even if he said: I am a Nazirite on condition that I shave over a hundred sin-offerings and a hundred guilt-offerings. It is, therefore, written \"that he vows.\" It applies only to offerings that are brought as vows and gifts (to exclude the above). I might think that even if he said \"I undertake five Naziritisms (on condition) that I shave one shaving for all,\" I recite over him \"according to his vow that he vows\"; it is, therefore, written \"thus shall he do according to the law of his Naziritism\" (i.e., he must shave for each Naziritism individually). R. Eliezer b. Shamua and R. Yochanan Hasandlar asked R. Shimon b. Yochai: If one were a clean Nazirite (as opposed to one defiled by the dead) and a leper, may he perform one shaving, which satisfies both his Naziritism and his leprosy? He answered: Is this possible? If each shaved in order to grow hair, or if each shaved in order to remove hair, your question would be in place; but the leper shaves in order to grow hair (for he must shave a second time after his count (viz. Vayikra 14:9), and the Nazirite shaves in order to remove hair, so how can one shaving serve for both? — If not, let it (one shaving) suffice for the days of his (the leper's state of) confirmation and his (the Nazirite's) counting, (where both shave in order to remove hair). He answered: If both were before the sprinkling of the blood, your question would be in place. But the (confirmation) shaving of the leper is before the sprinkling of the blood, and that of the Nazirite, after the sprinkling of the blood. They responded: If it (one shaving) does not suffice for the days of his leprosy and a clean Nazirite, let it suffice for the days of his leprosy and an unclean (i.e., defiled) Nazirite. He answered: An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) counting — the intent of one (the leper) is to grow hair, and of the other (the Nazirite), to remove it. An unclean Nazirite in the days of his (the leper's) confirmation, (even though the intent of both is to remove it) — one, (the leper, shaves) before the administration of the waters of the red heifer; the other, (the Nazirite, shaves) after the administration of the waters. The conditions (for a single shaving) cannot be satisfied, neither in the days of his (the leper's) consummation nor in the days of his counting; neither with an unclean (Nazirite) nor with a clean one."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:22-23) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: Thus shall you bless, etc.\": Because the entire section deals with Cohanim, Aaron and his sons are brought into the context of \"saying\" (dibbur). For this is the rule: Wherever the \"dibbur\" is to the Cohanim, the action (of that section) is that of the Cohanim. Where the \"dibbur\" is to Israel as a whole, the action is that of Israel. Where the \"dibbur\" is to all men, the proselytes are to be included. \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": in the holy tongue. — But perhaps any tongue is permitted. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:12) \"These shall stand to bless the people.\" Just as there, in the holy tongue, so, here, in the holy tongue. R. Yehudah says: This (i.e., the above identity) is not needed, for wherever \"aniyah\" (\"answering\"), \"amirah\" (\"saying\") or \"cachah\" (\"thus\") is written, the holy tongue is intended. \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\" — standing. You say, standing; but perhaps either standing or not standing is permitted. It is, therefore, written \"These shall stand to bless the people.\" It is written here \"blessing\" and there, \"blessing.\" Just as \"blessing\" there is standing, so, \"blessing\" here. R. Nathan says: This (derivation) is not needed, for it is written (of the Cohanim, Devarim 10:8) \"… to stand before the L-rd, to minister unto Him, and to bless His name.\" Blessing is likened to ministering. Just as ministering is standing, so, blessing. \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": with raised hands. You say, with raised hands; but perhaps either with or without raised hands is permitted. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 9:22) \"And Aaron lifted his hands to the people and he blessed them.\" Just as there, with raised hands, so, here. R. Yonathan says: But perhaps just as there, Rosh Chodesh, offering, and the high-priest, so, here (these elements must obtain)! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:5) \"For him (a Cohein) did the L-rd your G-d choose from all of your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the L-rd, he and his sons all of the days.\" His sons are likened to him. Just as he, with raised hands, so, his sons with raised hands. \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": with the explicit name (the Tetragrammaton [yod-keh-vav-keh]). You say, with the Tetragrammaton. But, perhaps, only with an epithet. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 27) \"And they shall place My name on the children of Israel\" — the name that is distinctive with Me. I might think that this obtains even in those places bordering (on Jerusalem). It is, therefore, written here \"And they shall place My name,\" and, elsewhere, (I Kings 11:36) \"to place My name there.\" Just as there, the Temple, so, here, the Temple. In the Temple, with the Tetragrammaton; elsewhere, with an epithet. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says (Shemot 20:21) \"Wherever I mention My name, etc.\": This is an inverted verse, (to be understood as) \"Wherever I am revealed to you, there shall you mention My name.\" Where am I (i.e., My shechinah) revealed to you? In the Temple. You, too, may mention My name only in the Temple — whence they ruled: It is forbidden to utter the explicit Name (the Tetragrammaton) in the borders (of Jerusalem). \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": This tells me only of a blessing for (the men of) Israel. Whence do I derive (the same for) women, proselytes, and bondsmen? From \"Say to them\" — to all of them. Whence do I derive a blessing for the Cohanim (by the L-rd)? From (6:27) \"and I shall bless them (the Cohanim).\" \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": face to face. You say face to face, but perhaps face to back is intended! It is, therefore, written \"Say to them\" (as a man speaks to his neighbor) face to face. \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\": in a loud voice so that the entire congregation can hear.\" — But perhaps in a whisper is intended. — It is, therefore, written \"Say to them\" — so that the entire congregation can hear. And whence is it derived that the prayer leader must tell them (the Cohanim) to say? From \"Say to them.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:24) \"The L-rd bless you\": with the explicit blessing (Devarim 28:3-6) \"Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field … Blessed shall be your basket and your remainder. Blessed shall you be in your coming in and blessed shall you be in your going out.\" \"The L-rd bless you\": with possessions \"and keep you\": with possessions. R. Nathan says: May He bless you with possessions and keep you — in body. R. Yitzchak says \"and keep you\": from the evil inclination, as it is written (Proverbs 3:26) \"For the L-rd will be with you in your trust, and He will guard your feet from entrapment.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": from all evil, viz. (Psalms 121:4-7) \"He neither slumbers nor sleeps, the Keeper of Israel … at your right hand … By day the sun … The L-rd will keep you from all evil.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": from mazikkin (destructive agents), viz. (Ibid. 91:11) \"For His angels will He charge for you to keep you in all your ways.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": He will keep for you the covenant of your fathers, viz. (Devarim 7:12) \"… then the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the lovingkindness which He swore to your fathers.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": He will keep for you the \"end\" (i.e., the time of redemption). And thus is it written (Isaiah 21:11-12) \"A prophecy concerning Duma (Edom): He (Israel) calls to Me from Seir: 'Keeper, what of the night?' 'Keeper, what of the night?' The Keeper says: 'Morning is coming and also night, etc.'\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": He will keep your soul at the time of death, viz. (I Samuel 25:29) \"and my master's soul will be bound up (after death) in the bond of life.\" From this I would understand both (the soul of) the righteous and the wicked to be intended. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"but the soul of your foes will He hurl away from the hollow of a sling.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": He will keep your feet from Gehinnom, viz.: (Ibid. 2:9) \"He will keep (from Gehennom) the feet of His pious ones.\" Variantly: \"and keep you\": He will keep you in the world to come, viz. (Isaiah 4:31) \"But those who trust in the L-rd will renew strength. They will lift their wings as eagles, etc.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:25) \"The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you\": He will give you \"light\" of the eyes. R. Nathan says: This refers to the light of the Shechinah, as it is written (Isaiah 60:1-2) \"Arise, shine, for your Light has come. For the darkness will cover the earth, and a thick mist, the peoples, but upon you the L-rd will shine, and His glory will be seen upon you,\" (Psalms 67:2) \"G-d will favor us and bless us. He will cause His countenance to shine upon us, Selah,\" (Ibid. 118:27) \"… and He shone for us.\" Variantly: \"The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you\": This refers to the light of Torah, as it is written (Proverbs 6:23) \"For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah, light.\" \"and be gracious to you\": in (the granting of) your requests, as it is written (Shemot 33:19) \"And I shall be gracious to whom I shall be gracious, and I shall be merciful to whom I shall be merciful.\" Variantly: Let Him grant you grace in the eyes of man, as it is written (Bereshit 39:21) \"And He granted him grace in the eyes of the overseer of the prison,\" and (Esther 2:14) \"And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her,\" and (Daniel 1:9) \"And G-d granted Daniel grace and mercy,\" and (Proverbs 3:4) \"You will find favor and goodly wisdom in the eyes of G-d and man.\" Variantly: \"and be gracious to you\": with understanding, insight, mussar, and wisdom. Variantly: \"and be gracious to you\": in Torah study, as it is written (Proverbs 4:9) \"It (Torah) will set a chaplet of grace upon your head,\" and (Ibid. 1:9) \"For they (words of Torah) are a chaplet of grace to your head and a necklace to your throat.\" Variantly: \"and be gracious to you\": with gifts of \"grace,\" as it is written (Psalms 123:2) \"Behold, as the eyes of servants to their masters; as the eyes of a maidservant to the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes to the L-rd our G-d, until He grants us grace,\" and (Ibid. 3) \"Grant us grace, O L-rd, grant us grace, for we are fully sated with contempt, and (Isaiah 33:2) \"O L-rd, grant us grace, for in You have we hoped.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:26) \"The L-rd lift His countenance unto you\": when you stand in prayer), as it is written (in respect to the prayers of Abraham, Bereshit 19:21): \"Behold, I have lifted your countenance.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If I have lifted the countenance for Lot for the sake of Abraham, My beloved, shall I not do so for you, and for the sake of your fathers!",
            " One verse states \"The L-rd lift His countenance unto you,\" and another, (Devarim 10:17) \"who does not lift the countenance\" (i.e., who does not forgive) and who does not take a bribe.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? When Israel do the L-rd's will — \"The L-rd lift His countenance unto you\"; when they do not do the L-rd's will — \"who does not lift the countenance.\" Variantly: Before the decree has been sealed — \"The L-rd lift His countenance unto you\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"who does not lift the countenance.\" One verse states (Psalms 65:3) \"O, heeder of prayer, to You does all flesh come,\" and another, (Eichah 3:44) \"You have covered Yourself with a cloud against the passing of prayer.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"heeder of prayer\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"You have covered Yourself with a cloud.\" One verse states (Psalms 145:18) \"Close is the L-rd to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth,\" and another, (Ibid. 10:1) \"Why, O L-rd, do You stand afar?\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed\" — \"Close is the L-rd to all who call upon Him\"; after the decree has been sealed, He is \"afar.\" One verse states (Eichah 3:28) \"From the mouth of the Most High there shall not issue forth the evils and the good,\" and another, (Daniel 9:14) \"and the L-rd was anxious for the evil (to materialize).\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"From the mouth of the Most High there shall not issue forth the evils and the good\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"and the L-rd was anxious for the evil.\" One verse states (Jeremiah 4:14) \"Wash your heart of evil, O Jerusalem, so that you be saved,\" and another, (Ibid. 2:22) \"Though you wash yourself with niter and add borax, your sin is an (indelible) stain before Me.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"Wash your heart of evil, O Jerusalem\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"Though you wash yourself with niter and add borax, your sin is an (indelible) stain before Me.\" One verse states (Ibid. 3:22) \"Return, you wayward sons,\" and another, (Ibid. 8:4) \"If they (wish to) return, He will not return\" (to accept them.) How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"Return, you wayward sons\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"If they return, He will not return.\" One verse states (Isaiah 55:6) \"Seek the L-rd when He is found,\" and another, (Ezekiel 20:3) \"As I live (says the L-rd), will I be sought out for you?\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"Seek the L-rd when He is found\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"Will I be sought out for you?\" One verse states (Ibid. 18:32) \"For I do not desire the death of the dead one,\" and another (I Samuel 2:25) \"… for the L-rd desired to kill them.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before the decree has been sealed — \"For I do not desire the death of the dead one\"; after the decree has been sealed — \"for the L-rd desired to kill them.\" Variantly: One verse states \"The L-rd lift His countenance unto you,\" and another (Devarim 10:17) \"who does not lift the countenance.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? \"The L-rd lift His countenance\" — in this world; \"who does not lift the countenance\" — in the world to come. Variantly: \"The L-rd lift His countenance\" — (Let Him) remove His anger from you. \"and grant you peace\": peace in your coming in and peace in your going out and peace with all men. R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest says: \"and grant you peace\" — in your house. R. Nathan says: This is the peace of the Davidic kingdom, of which it is written (Isaiah 9:6) (the king) \"who increases the governance (of the L-rd), and his peace will be endless. Upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom\" (shall this peace be). Variantly: This is the peace of Torah, of which it is written (Psalms 29:11) \"The L-rd gives strength (Torah) to His people; the L-rd blesses His people with peace.\" Great is peace, the Holy One Blessed be He deviating from the truth for its sake in the instance of Sarah, who said \"I am old\" (see Bereshit 18:12-13). Great is peace, the angel deviating from the truth for its sake in the instance of Manoach for its sake (viz. Judges 13). Great is peace, the Name written in holiness being erased by the bitter waters (of the sotah) to make peace between a man and his wife. R. Elazar says: Great is peace, the prophets having exhorted all men for its sake. R. Shimon b Chalafta says: Great is peace, it being the only vessel which contains all of the blessings, it being written \"The L-rd gives strength to His people; the L-rd blesses His people with peace.\" R. Elazar Hakappar says: Great is peace, all of the blessings being sealed with peace, viz.: \"The L-rd bless you and keep you. The L-rd cause His countenance to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The L-rd lift His countenance unto you and grant you peace.\" R. Elazar the son of R. Elazar Hakappar says: Great is peace, for even if the idolators live in peace, the Holy One, as it were, does not \"touch\" them, as it is written (Hoshea 4:17) \"Ephraim (Yisrael) has bound himself (in friendship to serve) idols — Let him be.\" But when they were divided amongst themselves, what is written of them? (Ibid. 10:2) \"Their hearts are divided — Now they will be laid waste!\" How great is peace! — How abhorrent is contention! Great is peace, for even in time of war, peace is needed, viz. (Devarim 20:10) \"If you draw near a city to do battle with it, then you shall call out to it for peace,\" (Ibid. 2:26) \"And I sent messengers from the desert of Kedemoth to Sichon, king of Moav, (with) words of peace,\" (Judges 11:12) \"And Yiftach sent messengers …\" What did he (the king of Ammon) say? (13) \"And now, return them (the lands you took from us) in peace.\" Great is peace, for even the dead need peace, as it is written (Bereshit 15:13) \"And you will come to your fathers in peace,\" and (Jeremiah 34:5) \"In peace will you die, and as the burnings of your fathers, etc.\" Great is peace, which is given to the penitent, as it is written (Isaiah 57:19) \"(I will) create (for him [the penitent a new]) expression of the lips:\" Shalom Shalom! (And both will be alike, both) the far (i.e., one who had served the L-rd from his youth) and the near (i.e., one who had sinned and had just repented), etc.\" Great is peace, which was given in the portion of the righteous, as it is written (Ibid. 2) \"Let him (the righteous one) come in peace (to the grave). Let them (the men of lovingkindness) rest (peacefully) where they lie.\" Great is peace, which was not given in the portion of the wicked, viz. (Ibid. 21) \"There is no peace, says the L-rd, for the wicked.\" Great is peace, which was given to the lovers of Torah, viz. (Psalms 119:165) \"Peace in abundance for the lovers of Your Torah.\" Great is peace, which was given to the humble, viz. (Ibid. 37:11) \"and the humble will inherit the land and rejoice in an abundance of peace.\" Great is peace, which was given to the learners of Torah, viz. (Isaiah 59:13) \"And all your children will be (as if) taught by the L-rd, and (there will be) an abundance of peace (among) your children.\" Great is peace, which is given to the doers of righteousness, viz. (Ibid. 32:7) \"And the reward of righteousness will be peace.\" Great is peace, for the name of the Holy One Blessed be He is \"Peace,\" viz. (Judges 6:24) \"and he called it (the altar) 'the L-rd is Peace.'\" R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest says: Great is peace, which is over and against the entire creation, as it is written \"who makes peace … and creates all\" (viz. Isaiah 45:7). Great is peace, which is needed (even) by the celestial creations, viz. (Job 25:22) \"Governance and fear is with Him: He makes peace in His heights.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place where there is no enmity, or rivalry, or hatred, or hostility, peace is needed — how much more so, in a place where all of these obtain!",
            " One verse states (Ibid. 3) \"Is there any number to His angelic hosts?\" and another (Daniel 7:10) \"A thousand thousands were serving Him, and myriad myriads were standing before Him.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Before they were exiled from their land — \"Is there any number to His angelic hosts?\" After they were exiled from their land — \"A thousand thousands were serving Him.\" As it were, the celestial retinue was diminished. Rebbi says in the name of Abba b. Yossi: One verse states: \"Is there any number to His angelic hosts?\" and another, \"A thousand thousands were serving Him.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? \"A thousand thousands were serving Him\" — this is one host. And how many hosts are there? — \"Is there any number to His angelic hosts?\" One verse states (Psalms 147:4) \"He counts the number of the stars, (which implies that He calls each by name), and another (Isaiah 40:26) \"Raise your eyes on high and see who created these. He brings forth their legions by number; he calls to all of them by name,\" (which implies that He calls all of them as one). (How is this to be understood?) When the Holy One Blessed be He calls, all answer, something impossible for flesh and blood, to call two names at the same time. Similarly, (Shemot 20:1) \"And G-d spoke all of these things (in one utterance) saying, etc.\", and (Psalms 62:12) \"One thing has G-d spoken; these two have I heard,\" and (Jeremiah 23:29) \"Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd, and like a hammer shattering rock?\" Rebbi says in the name of Abba Yossi b. Dostai: One verse states \"He brings forth their legions by number, etc.\", and another \"He counts the number of the stars.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? We are hereby taught there is no changing of the (essential) name there. The name that it is called by now is not the name that it will be called by later, (but its \"name\" is simply a function of its embassy.) And thus is it written (Judges 12:18) \"And the angel of the L-rd said to him: Why do you ask my name? It is hidden.\" I do not know what \"name\" I will be converted to (in the future). One verse states (II Samuel 24:24) \"And David bought the threshing floor and the cattle for fifty silver shekels,\" and another (I Chronicles 21:25) \"And David gave Arnon for the place gold shekels weighing six hundred.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? For the place of the threshing floor, six hundred; for the place of the altar, fifty. Rebbi says, in the name of Abba Yossi b. Dostai: One verse states \"And David bought the threshing floor, etc.\" and another verse states \"And David gave Arnon for the place gold shekels weighing six hundred.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? There were twelve tribes, and he took from each fifty shekels, six hundred shekels in all. R. Elazar says \"And David bought the threshing floor,\" as explained elsewhere. Where? \"And David gave Arnon for the place, etc.\" But the cattle for the burnt-offering and the threshing sledges and the cattle gear for the wood for fifty shekalim. One verse states (I Kings 5:6) \"And Solomon had forty thousand stables of horses for his chariots,\" and another, (II Chronicles 9:28) \"four thousand stables of horses.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Four thousand stables for forty thousand (horses). One verse states (Ibid. 4:5) \"Its capacity was three thousand bath measures,\" and another (I Kings 7:26) \"Its capacity was two thousand bath measures.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? Two thousand in wet measure, which are three thousand in dry measure — whence the sages ruled: Forty sa'ah in wet measure is equal to two kor in dry measure.",
            " (to be understood as following \"how much more so, etc.\" [before the preceding paragraph]:) And thus is it written (Isaiah 23:4) \"Be ashamed, O Tziddon, for the sea has spoken, the fortress of the sea, saying: I have not labored, and I have not borne, and I have not raised youths or reared maidens.\" The sea hereby says: I, who do not fear — \"perhaps I will not labor, perhaps I will not bear sons and daughters, perhaps I will bury sons and daughters\" — What shall I say? \"Will you not fear Me, says the L-rd. Will you not tremble before Me, who have set sand as a bound to the sea, an eternal law, not to be broken\" — Now if I (the sea), with whom all of these trepidations do not obtain, do the will of my Master (and do not venture to break my bounds), how much more so you — \"Be ashamed, O Tziddon!\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 6:27) \"And they shall place My name\": Why is this stated? It is written (Ibid. 23) \"Thus shall you bless the children of Israel\" — with the explicit Name (the Tetragrammaton). — But perhaps with an epithet (only). It is, therefore, written \"And they shall place My name\" — My distinctive name (Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh). I might think, even in the borders (of Jerusalem). It is, therefore, written here \"And they shall place My name,\" and elsewhere (Devarim 12:5) \"to place My name there.\" Just as there, the Temple; here, too, the Temple. In the sanctuary, with the explicit Name; in the province, with an epithet. \"and I shall bless them\": Why is this stated? (Ibid. 23) \"Thus shall you bless, etc.\" tells us only of a blessing [by the Cohanim] to Israel. Whence do I derive a blessing for the Cohanim themselves? From \"and I shall bless them.\" Variantly: \"and I shall bless them\": So that Israel not say that their blessings are dependent upon the Cohanim; it is written \"and I shall bless them.\" So that the Cohanim not say We shall bless Israel, it is written \"and I shall bless them.\" I shall bless My people Israel, as it is written (Devarim 2:7) \"For the L-rd your G-d has blessed you in all the work of your hands,\" (15:6) \"as He spoke to you,\" viz. (7:13) \"And He will love you and bless you and multiply you, and bless etc.\", and (28:12) \"The L-rd will open for you His goodly treasure, the heavens,\" and (Ezekiel 34:14) \"In a goodly pasture will I graze them,\" and (Ibid. 15) \"I will feed My flock.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:1) \"And it was on the day that Moses had finished setting up the mishkan\" (the tabernacle): Scripture here apprises us that all the seven days of consecration Moses would assemble the mishkan every morning and anoint it and dismantle it, and on that day (the eighth) he set it up and anointed it and assembled it and did not dismantle it. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: On the eighth day, too, he anointed it and dismantled it. And it is written (Shemot 40:17) \"And it was, in the first month (Nissan) in the second year, on the first day of the month that the mishkan was established — whence we derive that on the twenty-third of Adar Aaron and his sons began to anoint the mishkan and all of its vessels; on Rosh Chodesh (Nissan) it was established; on the second (of Nissan) the red heifer was burned; on the third, its waters were sprinkled (viz. Bamidbar 8:7). On that day (Rosh Chodesh Nissan), the Shechinah reposed in the house, as it is written (Shemot 40:35) \"And Moses could not enter the tent of meeting, etc.\" On that day the chiefs (of the tribes) sacrificed their offerings, as it is written (Bamidbar 7:12) \"And the one who presented his offering on the first day…\" Why (emphasize) \"the first day\"? It was the first of all the days of the year. On that day fire descended from heaven and consumed the offerings, as it is written (Vayikra 9:24) \"And a fire came forth from before the L-rd and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fats.\" On that day the sons of Aaron presented a strange fire, as it is written (Vayikra 10:1) \"And Nadav and Avihu the sons of Aaron took, each his censer … (2) and they died before the L-rd.\" Their death was \"before the L-rd,\" and their falling was outside. How did they leave (the inner sanctum)? R. Yossi was wont to say: An angel propped them dead until they left and they fell in the azarah (the court), as it is written (Ibid. 4) \"Draw near and bear your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.\" It is not written \"from before the L-rd,\" but \"from before the sanctuary.\" R. Yishmael says: It is derived from the verse itself — \"and they died before the L-rd\" — that their death was within (the sanctuary) and their falling was within. How did they leave? They dragged them out with iron hooks.\" (Bamidbar 7:1) \"and he anointed it and consecrated it and all of its vessels\": I might think that they were anointed and consecrated one by one. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"and he anointed them and consecrated them\" — he did not consecrate one of them until all of them had been anointed. \"and he anointed them\": from inside and from outside. R. Yoshiyah says: Wet-measure vessels were anointed inside and outside, and dry-measure vessels, on the inside only, but not on the outside. R. Yonathan says: Wet-measure vessels were anointed on the inside but not on the outside, and dry-measure vessels were anointed neither on the inside nor on the outside. Know this to be so, that they were not anointed, it being written (Vayikra 23:17) \"From your dwellings shall you bring two wave loaves. Two-tenths of fine flour shall they be … they shall be baked as firstlings to the L-rd.\" When are they \"to the L-rd\"? After they have been baked. Rebbi says: \"and he anointed them and consecrated them\": Why is this stated? Is it not already written \"and he anointed it and consecrated it\"? We are hereby apprised that with the anointment of these, all the future vessels were consecrated (i.e., they did not require prior anointment)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:2) \"And the chiefs of Israel presented (their offerings\"): I might think that they were common people appointed (to their position); it is, therefore, written \"the heads of their fathers' house.\" And not only the heads of their fathers' house, but also \"the chiefs of the tribes.\" And what is the thrust of \"the heads of their fathers' house\"? Chiefs the sons of chiefs. (\"the heads of their fathers' house) were they\" — they who were appointed over them in Egypt, viz. (Shemot 5:14) \"And the officers of the children of Israel were beaten, etc.\" (Ibid. 3) \"And they presented their offerings before the L-rd, six wagons tzav.\" \"tzav\" is \"opulent\" — they were lacking nothing. Rebbi says: \"tzav\" is \"covered,\" as gluskaoth are. And though there is no proof for this, it is intimated in (Isaiah 66:20) \"And they will bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the L-rd, on horses, and in chariots, and in litters (\"tzavim\") and on mules and on dromedaries.\" \"six wagons tzav\": I might think, a wagon for each one (of six, who donated them); it is, therefore, written \"a wagon for every two chiefs.\" I might think an ox for two chiefs; it is, therefore, written \"and an ox for each.\" They came and stood before the mishkan, but Moses would not accept them until it was told to him by the Holy (Spirit): Take it from them. Their minds are at one with that of the Most High. R. Nathan says: What did the chiefs see to come first with their offerings here, but not in the offerings for the work of the mishkan? (In that instance) they said: Let Israel offer what they will and we will make up what is missing. When they saw that the congregation had completed everything, viz. (Shemot 36:7) \"And what they had was enough for all of the work and more,\" they said: What is left for us to do? And the chiefs brought the onyx stones (viz. Ibid. 35:27) Therefore, they brought their offerings first here."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:6) \"And Moses took the wagons and the oxen and he gave them to the Levites\": Moses took them and distributed them as he saw fit: Two wagons and four oxen he gave to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen he gave to the sons of Merari. And thus do we find with David, that he distributed the heads of the watches among the Cohanim, viz. (I Chronicles 24:4-6) \"And there were more chiefs found of the sons of Elazar than of the sons of Ithamar, and thus were they divided. Among the sons of Elazar there were sixteen chiefs of the house of their fathers, and eight among the sons of Ithamar according to the house of their fathers. And they were divided by lot, these with the others … and Shemayah the son of Nathanel, of the Levites, recorded them before the king and the princes, and Tzaddok the Cohein and Achimelech the son of Avyathar, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 7:9) \"And to the sons of Kehath he gave no (wagons)\": R. Nathan says: This escaped David, that the Levites bore the ark in a wagon, as it is written (I Samuel 6:3) \"And they placed the ark of G-d on a new wagon … (7) And the L-rd was wroth with Uzzah, and He smote him there for erring … (8) And David grieved over the L-rd's having made a breach in Uzzah.\" Achitofel said to David: Should you not have learned from Moses your master that the Levites bore the ark only on their shoulder, as it is written \"And to the sons of Kehath he gave none for the burden of the holy things was theirs, (wherefore) they were to be borne upon the shoulder\"? Therefore, David afterwards sent and had it borne on the shoulder, as it is written (I Chronicles 15:11-15) \"And David called to Tzaddok and to Evyathar the Cohanim, and to the Levites: to Uriel, Assayah, and Yoel, Shemayah, Eliaz, and Aminadav. And he said to them: You are the heads of the fathers' (houses) of the Levites. Ready yourselves and your brothers, and you shall bring up the ark of the L-rd, the G-d of Israel. For in the beginning (when the ark was brought up from Kiryat Yearim), it was not you (who were the bearers, wherefore) the L-rd our G-d made a breach in us … And the Cohanim and the Levites readied themselves … And the sons of the Levites bore the ark of G-d as Moses had commanded by word of the L-rd, on their shoulders, with staves upon them.\" And where did he so command? \"And to the sons of Kehath he gave none, etc.\" (Ibid. 24:19 [\"These are their numbers (i.e., the numbers of their watches) for their service, to come to the house of the L-rd as ordained, by the hand of Aaron, their father, as the L-rd, the G-d of Israel, commanded him.\"]) They originated nothing, but (did) all from the mouth of Moses, and Moses from the mouth of the Omnipotent."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:10) \"And the chiefs presented the inauguration (offerings) of the altar on the day that it was anointed\": We are hereby apprised that just as the chiefs made donations for the work of the mishkan, so, they made donations for the inauguration of the altar. \"And the chiefs presented\": They came and stood before the altar and Moses did not accept (their offerings) from them until he was told by the Holy One: Let them present their offerings for the inauguration of the altar. And Moses still did not know in what order (of precedence) they should present them, if by (order of precedence in) the traveling (of the camps, in which instance Judah would present first) or by (order of) birth, (in which instance Reuven would present first), until he was told by the Holy One Blessed be He: Let them present by (the order of) traveling. And Moses still did not know how the chiefs would present, all together, or each in his day, until he was told by the Holy One: Let each one present in his day, as it is written (Ibid. 11) \"each chief on his day\": What is the intent of (the redundancy) \"each chief on his day, each chief on his day\"? Because Nachshon was (comparable to) a king, and he presented first, he should not say: Since I presented first, I should (also) present with each one on his day; it is, therefore, written \"each chief on his day.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:12) \"And the one who presented his offering on the first day\": What is the intent of this? \"first\" of all the days of the year (i.e., the first of Nissan). \"Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Judah\": Is the intent of this attribution to link him with his tribe or to indicate that he obtained (the offering) from his tribe and brought it? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) \"This is the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav\" — his personal offering and not his tribe's. What, then, is the intent of Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Judah\"? To link him with his tribe."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:13) \"And his offering was one silver dish, etc.\": We are hereby taught (by the uniformity of all of the items) that they were originally made for the sake of the offerings. \"one silver bowl of seventy shekels in the shekel of the sanctuary\": This tells me only that the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive the same for the dish? From (\"in the shekel of the sanctuary) both of them\" — Just as the bowl was in the shekel of the sanctuary, so, the dish. R. Chanania the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: There is no need (for this derivation), for it is already written (Ibid. 85) \"two thousand and four hundred in the shekel of the sanctuary.\" What, then, is the intent of \"both of them full\"? From (\"one silver dish) weighing one hundred and thirty shekels,\" I would think that since they were not equal in weight, (the bowl weighing seventy shekels), they were not equal in capacity; it is, therefore, written \"both of them full.\" And what is the difference between dish and bowl? The plate of the dish is thick; the plate of the bowl is thin. \"both of them full of fine flour\": (also) donated. \"one spoon\": It makes what is in it \"one\" (for halachic purposes). \"ten gold (shekels)\": (Is the meaning that) it was of gold, and its weight (ten shekels) of silver, or that it was of silver, and its weight,(ten shekels) of gold? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 86) \"All the gold of the spoons — one hundred and twenty (shekels.\") The first assumption, then, is the correct one — It was of gold, and its weight, of silver. \"full of incense\": donative (and not required) incense."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:15) \"One young bullock\": There was no other like it in its herd. \"one ram\": There was no other like it in its herd. \"one lamb of its first year\": (within) its first year, and not the (one-year) count of the world. \"one lamb … for a burnt-offering\": We are hereby taught that all are valid as a burnt-offering. — But perhaps \"a lamb,\" where it is explicitly stated, is valid, but the others not! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 87) \"All the cattle for the burnt-offering: twelve bullocks, etc.\", to indicate that all are valid as burnt-offerings."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:16) \"One he-goat for a sin-offering\": to atone for (defilement by a \"grave in the depths,\" (i.e., unknown tumah). \"And for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\": From (Ibid. 88) \"And all the cattle for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,\" I might think that \"cattle,\" where it is explicitly stated, are valid for peace-offerings, but not the others; it is, therefore, written \"And for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,\" to indicate that all are valid for the sacrifice of peace-offerings. \"This is the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav\": He brings his own and not his tribe's. \"this is the offering\": This one (the chief, in the inauguration of the altar) brings donative incense, but an individual (as opposed to a congregation) does not (otherwise) bring donative incense. \"this is the offering\": This one brings a sin-offering, not for a sin, but an individual does not bring a sin-offering not for a sin. (The offering of) this one overrides the Sabbath and tumah, but an individual does not override Sabbath and tumah."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:18) \"On the second day, Nethanel ben Tzuar, the chief of Yissachar, presented\": (Ibid. 19) \"He presented (hikriv) his offering\": What is the intent of this (i.e., why the redundancy?) Because Reuven came and protested, saying: It is enough that Judah preceded me; let me (now) present according to the order of (precedence) in birth, Moses rebuked him, saying: The Holy One told me to present according to (precedence) in (the order of) journeying — it being written \"hakrev\" (imperative - \"Present\"). \"He (Nethanel) presented his offering.\" Because Nethanel merited in counsel (i.e., to counsel the presentation of these offerings), Scripture accounts it to him as if he had presented first and he merited the bequest of binah (understanding) as his (Yissachar's) portion, viz. (I Chronicles 12:33) \"And of the sons of Yissachar, knowers of understanding for the times,\" and (Judges 5:15) \"And the leaders of Yissachar (the Sanhedrin) were with Devorah, and as Yissachar, so, Barak, in the valley, etc.\" And thus does Scripture praise him (Yissachar) in the batei-din in Egypt, viz. (of Yissachar) \"Yashuv, the family of the Yashuvi, \"yishuv\" connoting beth-din, as in (Ezekiel 33:31) \"and they will come to you as a people comes, and My people will sit (in judgment) before you,\" and (Devarim 33:18) \"Rejoice Zevulun on your going forth (to trade), and Yissachar in your tents (of Torah),\" and (Bereshit 25:27) \"… and Yaakov was a \"whole\" man, sitting in the tents (of learning).\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:84) This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar on the day that it was anointed\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 88) \"This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar after it was anointed,\" I might think after (a relatively long period of) time; it is, therefore, written \"on the day that it was anointed.\" If on the day that it was anointed, I might think that before it was anointed the offering was brought; it is, therefore, written \"after it was anointed\" — On the day that it was anointed, on the very same day he brought the offering — after it was anointed. Similarly, (Vayikra 7:35-36) \"This is the (portion of the) anointment of Aaron and of the anointment of his sons … which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them\" — On the day that they were anointed they merited receiving the (priestly) gifts. — But perhaps the meaning is that on that day they were commanded (to give the gifts), but they did not actually receive them until a later time. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 35) \"… of the fire-offerings of the L-rd on the day that he presented them to minister to the L-rd\" — On the day that they were anointed, they merited receiving the gifts. If so, what is the intent of \"which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them\"? We are hereby taught that they (Israel) were commanded (to give them) on Mount Sinai, but they (the Cohanim) did not acquire them until they had been anointed with the oil of anointment. (Bamidbar 7:84) \"by the chiefs of Israel\": We are hereby taught that just as they were all united in counsel (to bring the offerings), so, they were all \"united\" in merit. \"silver dishes, twelve\": the very ones that they donated, their not having become unfit (for service)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:85) \"One hundred and thirty (shekels was the weight of) each silver dish\": Why is this written (again)? From \"his offering was one silver dish, etc.\" I know only that the \"bowl,\" where it is explicitly stated, was \"in the shekel of the sanctuary.\" Whence do I derive the same for the \"dish\"? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"All the silver of the vessels — two thousand and four hundred shekels in the shekel of the sanctuary.\" And to teach that not as common vessels were the Temple vessels. Common vessels — If he weighs them one by one and then weighs them all together, there is some increase or decrease (in the resultant weight); but with these (Temple vessels), there is neither increase nor decrease. R. Nathan says: Temple vessels — if one weighed them and then melted them into a mold, and then re-made them into vessels, there would be no increase or decrease (in the resultant weight)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:86) \"Golden spoons, twelve\": Why is this mentioned? (Ibid. 14) \"One spoon ten gold\": It is of gold, and its weight is of silver (shekels). You say it is of gold and its weight is of silver. But perhaps it is of silver and its weight is of gold! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 86) \"All the gold of the spoons — one hundred and twenty.\" It is not the second assumption that is correct, but the first. It is of gold, and its weight is of silver. \"Golden spoons\": the same that were donated, no unfitness having befallen them. And it is accounted to each one as if he had offered twelve dishes, twelve bowls, and twelve spoons."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:87) \"All the cattle for the burnt-offering: twelve bullocks, etc.\" Why is this mentioned? It is written (Ibid. 15) \"One young bullock, one ram, one lamb of its first year for a burnt-offering.\" We are hereby taught that they are all valid as a burnt-offering. — But perhaps only the lamb, where it is explicitly written, is valid as a burnt-offering, but not the others. It is, therefore, written \"All the cattle for the burnt-offering.\" We are here apprised that they are all valid as a burnt-offering. And it is accounted to each one as if he had offered twelve young bullocks, twelve rams, twelve lambs, and twelve he-goats. And they were the same that were donated, no unfitness having befallen them."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:88) \"And all the cattle for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\": I might think that only oxen, where it is explicitly written (viz. Ibid. 17), are valid as peace-offerings, but not the others; it is, therefore, written \"And for the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,\" to indicate that all are valid as peace-offerings. And it is accounted to each one as if he had offered twenty-four oxen, sixty rams, and sixty lambs. And they were the same that were donated, no unfitness having befallen them. \"This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar after it was anointed\": as explained above."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 7:89) \"And when Moses came to the tent of meeting\": (Why is this mentioned? We already know that the L-rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting.) From (Vayikra 1:1) \"and the L-rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting,\" I understand directly from the tent of meeting. It is, therefore, written (Shemot 25:22) \"And I will be appointed for you (to speak to you) there, and I will speak to you from above the kaporeth (the ark cover).\" It is impossible to say from the tent of meeting, for it is already written \"from above the kaporeth,\" and it is impossible to say \"from above the kaporeth,\" for it is already written \"from the tent of meeting.\" How, then, are these two verses to be reconciled? This is a rule in the Torah: Two verses which contradict each other are to \"remain in their place\" until a third verse comes and reconciles them, (the third verse, in this instance, being) \"And when Moses came to the tent of meeting.\" Scripture hereby tells us that Moses would enter and stand in the tent of meeting, and the Voice would descend from the heaven of heavens to between the two cherubs (on the ark cover) and he would hear the Voice speaking to him from within. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Thirteen utterances were addressed to (both) Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to these, thirteen \"exclusions\" (i.e., Aaron being excluded), to teach that they were not addressed to Aaron, but only to Moses to tell to Aaron. They are; (Shemot 25:22) \"And I will be appointed for you there, and I will speak with you, all that I shall command you,\" (Shemot 30:6) \"where I will be appointed for you,\" (Ibid.) \"to speak to you there,\" (Shemot 31:18) \"to speak with him,\" (Vayikra 7:38) \"on the day that he commanded,\" (Bamidbar 7:89) \"And when Moses came to the tent of meeting to speak with Him,\" (Ibid.) \"speaking with him,\" (Vayikra 1:1) \"And the L-rd spoke to him,\" and one in Egypt (Shemot 6:28) \"And it was on the day that the L-rd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt,\" and one in Sinai (Bamidbar 3:1) \"on the day the L-rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai,\" and one in the tent of meeting (Bamidbar 7:89) \"And He spoke to him.\" — Thirteen exclusions, Aaron being excluded in all instances.",
            " \"and he heard the Voice\": I might think, a low voice; it is, therefore, written \"the voice\" — the voice explicated elsewhere (Devarim 5:19) \"These things the L-rd spoke to all of your congregation … a great voice,\" and (Shemot 19:16) \"and there were thunders (lit., \"voices\") and lightnings, etc.\" One verse states \"a great voice,\" and another, (I Kings 19:12) \"a voice, silent, thin.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? When the Holy One Blessed be He speaks (in His great voice), all are silent, as in (Isaiah 23:2) \"Fall silent, you island dwellers. The merchants of Tziddon, the crossings of the sea, would fill you, etc.\", and (Vayikra 10:3) \"and Aaron was silent.\" These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: One verse states \"a great voice,\" and another, \"a voice, silent, thin.\" How are these verses to be reconciled? When the Holy One Blessed be He speaks, it is with a great voice; and the angels, in a low voice, as it is written (Isaiah 62:6-7) \"… they are never silent. You who 'remind' the L-rd (to rebuild Jerusalem) do not be silent,\" and (Ibid. 7) \"And do not allow Him to be silent until He re-establishes Jerusalem and makes it a glory in the land.\""
        ],
        [
            " What is the intent of this section? From (Shemot 25:37) \"and he (the artificer) shall fashion its lamps so that it shall light across its face,\" I might think that all the lamps should light across all of the menorah (i.e., from all directions); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 8:2) \"towards the face (the central shaft) shall the seven lamps light\" — that the lamps parallel the menorah (the central lamp), and the menorah, the (other) lamps. How so? Three in the north, three in the south and one (the menorah) in the middle, so that all (of the lamps) are parallel to the middle — whence R. Nathan says: \"The middle one is honored.\" \"Speak to Aaron\": Because the entire section deals with Aaron, the words are directed to him. \"and say to him\": This is an exhortation to Aaron. \"Beha'alothecha (lit., \"when you raise) the lamps\": Make steps (ma'aloth) for it. \"towards (mul) the face (panim) of the menorah\": Make for it \"mul\" (the three on each side facing) \"towards\" and \"face\" (i.e., the central shaft). \"shall the seven lamps light\": I might think that they light forever; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 24:3) \"from evening until morning.\" If \"from evening until morning\" (alone were written), I would think that this applied to all of them. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 2) \"to cause a lamp to light continuously\" — This is the western lamp, which burned continuously and from which the menorah was kindled towards evening."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 8:3) \"And Aaron did so\": This is in praise of Aaron. As Moses told him, thus did he do, without any change. He made \"mul\" and \"panim\" (see above). \"He'elah\" (lit., \"he raised\") its lamps\" — whence they said: There was an ascent before the menorah of three steps on which the Cohein stood and tended to the lamps, (after which) he placed the oil jug on the second step and left. \"as the L-rd had commanded Moses\" (i.e., half a log for each lamp, etc.) This tells me only of Aaron (the high-priest). Whence do I derive the same for his sons (i.e., ordinary Cohanim)? From (Vayikra 24:3) \"Aaron and his sons shall arrange it.\" This tells me only of the menorah, that the sons were equated with the father. Whence do I derive the same for the (offering of the) incense? (viz. Shemot 34:7) \"It follows, viz.: \"Service in the tent of meeting\" is written in respect to the menorah, and it is also written in respect to the incense. If I have learned of the first that sons are equated with the father, so, do I learn with the second. — (No,) this is refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, in which instance, even though \"service in the tent of meeting\" is written in respect to it, the sons are not equated with the father. And this refutes (the argument for) incense, which, even though \"service in the tent of meeting\" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. — Would you say that? There is a (strategic) difference! \"service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments\" is written both in respect to the menorah and in respect to the incense, and this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, which, even though \"service in the tent of meeting\" is written thereof, is not in golden (but in linen vestments). — This (argument) is refuted by the instance of the bullock of \"forgetfulness\" of the anointed (high-priest [viz. Vayikra 4:3]) whereof \"service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments\" is written, and in respect to which sons were not equated with the father. And this will refute (the argument for) incense, which even though \"service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments\" is written thereof, we would not equate the sons with the father. Would you say that? There is a difference! I would derive it from three terms together. In respect to the menorah it is written \"service in the tent of meeting,\" and \"golden vestments,\" and also \"continuously\" (tamid), and thus is it written of incense. And this is not to be refuted by the service of Yom Kippur, where, even though \"service in the tent of meeting\" is written thereof, it is not in golden vestments. Nor (is it to be refuted) by the bullock of forgetfulness of the anointed (high-priest), where, even though \"service in the tent of meeting in golden vestments\" is written thereof, \"continuously\" is not written thereof. I will learn a thing from a (similar) thing, and I will derive a thing from a (similar) thing. I will learn a thing from another thing which is similar to it in three ways, but not from a thing that is not similar to it in three things, but only in one or two. Therefore, if I have learned in respect to the menorah that sons are equated with the father, so, I will learn in respect to the incense that the sons are equated with the father."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 8:4) \"And this was the work of the menorah. (It was made of one talent of) beaten gold, from its base (the thickest part) until its flower (its most delicate part) — of beaten work. According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses, so did he make the menorah.\": R. Yishmael says: This is one of the three things which Moses had difficulty in visualizing until the Holy One Blessed be He showed it to him with His \"finger.\" Similarly (Shemot 12:2) \"This month shall be unto you the beginning of months,\" (Moses pointing to the moon). Similarly, (Vayikra 11:29) \"And thus to you is what is unclean,\" (Moses actually pointing to the unclean animals). \"of beaten work\" (\"mikshah\") [acronym of] \"min kasheh,\" from the (gold) bar itself, with a (goldsmith's) hammer. \"from its base until its flower\": This (that it is from the bar itself) tells me only of its base and its flower. Whence do I derive (the same for) its bowls, its knobs and its flowers? From (Shemot 25:31) \"And you shall make a menorah of pure gold. Of beaten work shall the menorah be made: its shaft and its branches, its bowls, its knobs, and its flowers.\" — But perhaps they (bowls, knobs, and flowers shall be made individually (and then attached to the shaft). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"From it (the one bar) shall they be.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"of beaten work\": Why is this re-stated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) \"of beaten gold'? Because we find with the trumpets that if they could not be made of (one) beaten work, they may be made of fragments, I might think that the same applies to the menorah; it is, therefore, re-stated \"of beaten work.\" Scripture repeats to invalidate (unbeaten work). From here they ruled: If there were no gold (for the menorah), it may be made of silver or iron or lead. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yehudah says: even of wood. But if they cannot make it of one bar, they may not make it of fragments. As opposed to the trumpets. If they cannot make them of silver, they may not make them of gold; but if they cannot make them of one bar, they may make them of fragments. We find, then, that what is valid with the menorah is invalid with the trumpets, and vice versa. This tells me only of the menorah. Whence do I derive (the same for) its bowls, its knobs, and its flowers? From (Shemot 25:36) \"All (of the above) one beaten work. I might think the same applies to its lamps and its tongs and its snuff dishes; it is, therefore, written (in respect to these, Ibid. 39) \"Of a talent of pure gold shall he make it (the menorah) with all of these (the aforementioned) vessels. They are made from the talent and of gold, but they do not come from the (one) beaten work. \"According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses\": What is the intent of this? If to teach that the Holy One Blessed be He showed this to Moses in a vision, is it not already written (Shemot 25:40) \"And see and make (it) according to their form which you were shown in the mountain\"? We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He showed Moses the completed mishkan and the completed vessels and the completed menorah. If so, what is the intent of \"According to the sight that the L-rd had shown Moses thus did he do\"? To apprise us of the nobility of Moses — Precisely as the L-rd said to him, thus did he do."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 3:24) \"This is what applies to the Levites. From the age of twenty-five, etc.\" \"Years\" (i.e., a deficiency in years) disqualify them (from Levitical service), but blemishes do not. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where years do not disqualify (i.e., with the Cohanim), blemishes do disqualify, then where years do disqualify, how much more so should blemishes disqualify! It is, therefore, written \"This is what applies to the Levites, etc.\" \"Years\" disqualify the Levites, but not blemishes. (Bamidbar 8:24) \"From the age of twenty-five and up, etc.\": One verse states \"From the age of twenty-five and up,\" and another (Ibid. 4:23) \"From thirty years and up.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? From the age of twenty-five for learning (the Levitical service), and from the age of thirty, for serving."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar. 8:25) \"And from the age of fifty he shall return from the service of the work.\" I might think, from all work; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"and he shall work no more and he shall serve with his brothers in the tent of meeting.\" We are hereby taught that he returns to the closing of the gates and to the service of the sons of Gershon (in the tent of meeting [viz. Ibid. 3:25-26]). Rebbi says: Since Scripture speaks of serving at the age of twenty-five and not serving at the age of fifty, if I have learned that from the age of twenty-five he performs all of the services, then not serving from the age of fifty would mean not performing all of the services; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 8:25-26) \"And (after the age of fifty), he shall serve no more, and he shall serve with his brothers, etc.\" I might think (that after fifty he does no work) even in Shiloh and in the Temple; it is, therefore, written (8:25-26) \"And from the age of fifty he shall return from the service of the work … and he shall serve his brothers … but work shall he not perform\" — From here they said: Before they entered the land, \"years\" disqualified Levites (from Levitical service), (but not after they entered the land). And when they entered, the Levites were disqualified (from the service of singing) by (a deficiency in) voice. (8:26) \"Thus shall you do with the Levites in their watches\": \"Years\" disqualify in Levites, but not in Cohanim. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where blemishes do not disqualify, years do disqualify, then Cohanim, where blemishes do disqualify, how much more so should years disqualify. It is, therefore, written: \"Thus shall you do with the Levites\" — and not with the Cohanim. Levites, from the age of thirty until fifty are fit (for service), and Cohanim (are fit from the time they show two (pubic) hairs and thereafter."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:1) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai in the second year after their going out from the land of Egypt, in the first month (Nissan), saying\": This verse is in praise of Israel (to indicate) that they were encamped before Mount Sinai for eleven months, and to teach that there is no \"before and after\" (i.e., chronological order) in the Torah. For in the beginning of this Book it is written (1:1) \"And the L-rd said to Moses in the desert of Sinai in the tent of meeting on the first day of the second month (Iyyar), and here it is written \"in the first month\" — to teach that there is no \"before and after\" in the Torah. Rebbi says: This is not needed (for this teaching), for it is already written (Shemot 16:35) \"And the children of Israel ate the manna for forty years until they came to an inhabited land\" — and they had not yet done so.",
            " And to teach that we count (the years) from the exodus from Egypt, it being written \"in the second year after their going out from the land of Egypt.\" When they came to the land, they began to count (shemitah, etc.) from their coming, as it is written (Vayikra 25:2) \"When you come to the land, etc.\" When the Temple was built, they began to count from its building, viz. (I Kings 9:10) \"And it was at the end of twenty years from Solomon's building, etc.\" When the Temple was destroyed, they began to count from its destruction, viz. (Ezekiel 40:1) \"… in the fourteenth year of the city's being smitten.\" When the captivity intensified, they began to count from the captivity, viz. (Daniel 2:1) \"And in the second year of the reign of Nevuchadnezzar, etc.\", and (Chaggai 1:1) \"And in the second year of King Darius, etc.\" And just as they counted for years, so they counted for months (e.g., [Shemot 19:1]) \"In the third month of the exodus of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:2) \"And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time\": Why is this stated? (i.e., Isn't it obvious?) From (Shemot 12:6) \"and the whole congregation of Israel shall slaughter it (the Paschal lamb),\" I might think, either on a weekday or on Sabbath (as the case may be). And how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) \"Its (Sabbath's) desecrators shall be put to death\"? With other labors, other than slaughtering the Paschal lamb. — Or, even with slaughtering the Paschal lamb. And how would I satisfy \"and they shall slaughter it\"? (If it falls out) on other days, other than Sabbath. It is, therefore, written \"And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time\" (— even on the Sabbath). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan (to R. Yoshiyah): This is not sufficient (for the derivation [i.e., \"in its appointed time\" may mean if it does not fall out on a Sabbath.]) R. Yoshiyah (to R. Yonathan): Rather, it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) \"Command the children of Israel and say to them … to offer (the tamid) offering to Me in its appointed time.\" If (the intent of this is) to teach that the tamid offering overrides Sabbath, this is not needed; for it is already written (Ibid. 9) \"And on the Sabbath day, (there are to be sacrificed) two lambs of the first year … (10) the burnt-offering of the Sabbath in its Sabbath in addition to the daily burnt-offering, etc.\" What, then, is the intent (of \"in its appointed time\")? It is \"extra,\" to signal the formulation of an identity, viz.: it is written here \"in its appointed time,\" and elsewhere (re the Paschal lamb) \"in its appointed time.\" Just as \"its appointed time\" here overrides Sabbath, so, \"its appointed time\" there overrides Sabbath. \"On the fourteenth day of this month, towards evening shall you offer it, in its appointed time.\": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written \"The children of Israel shall offer it in its appointed time\"? Why, again, \"in its appointed time\"? Scripture hereby comes to teach us that just as the first Pesach (as opposed to Pesach Sheni) overrides the Sabbath, so it overrides (communal) uncleanliness. For (without this verse,) it would follow otherwise, viz.: If (the slaughtering of) the red heifer, which does not override the Sabbath overrides (communal) uncleanliness, the first Pesach, which overrides the Sabbath, how much more so should it override uncleanliness? — This is refuted by the second Pesach, which even though it overrides the Sabbath, does not override uncleanliness. And this would indicate of the first Pesach that even though it overrides the Sabbath, it does not override uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written \"in its appointed time,\" to teach concerning the first Pesach that just as it overrides the Sabbath it overrides uncleanliness. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"According to all of its statutes\": These are the mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, viz. (Shemot 12:5) \"an unblemished lamb, a male, of the first year.\" \"its ordinances\": These are the mitzvoth attendant upon its body, viz. (Devarim 16:3) \"Seven days shall you eat matzoth 'upon' it.\" \"according to all its ordinances\": to include mitzvoth not attendant upon its body — the eating of matzoh for seven days and the burning of chametz."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:4) \"And Moses spoke to the children of Israel to offer the Pesach\": Why is this stated? It is already written (Vayikra 23:44) \"And Moses declared the festivals of the L-rd to the children of Israel.\" What, then, is the intent of \"And Moses spoke to the children of Israel to offer the Pesach\"? Keep the Pesach in its appointed time (viz. Devarim 16:1), so that all of the festivals fall out in their proper season. Variantly: We are hereby taught that he heard the sections of the festivals at Sinai, related them to Israel, and repeated them before their performance. Variantly: He told them the halachoth of Pesach before Pesach, the halachoth of Shavuoth before Shavuoth, and the halachoth of Succoth before Succoth — whence they said: Moses instituted for Israel that they ask and expound re the festival (preceding the festival)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:5) \"And they offered the Pesach in the first (month) on the fourteenth day of the month\": Scripture speaks in disparagement of Israel, that all the forty years that they were in the desert they offered only this one Paschal sacrifice. And thus is it written (Amos 5:25) \"Did you bring sacrifices and meal-offerings to Me for forty years in the desert?\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Israel did not sacrifice, and who did sacrifice? The tribe of Levi, as it is written (Devarim 33:10) \"They shall place incense before You and a burnt-offering upon Your altar.\" Israel served idolatry and the Levites did not serve idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 9) \"For they kept Your commandment (\"You shall have no other gods\"). And it is written (Shemot 32:26) \"And Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and he said 'Whoever is for the L-rd, (let him come) to me!' And there gathered unto him all the sons of Levi.\" Israel did not circumcise themselves (in the desert), as it is written (Joshua 5:5) \"and all the people who were born in the desert … were not circumcised,\" but the Levites were circumcised, viz. (Devarim 33:10) \"and Your covenant (of circumcision) they kept.\" (Bamidbar 9:5) \"According to all that the L-rd had commanded Moses\": to declare the praise of Israel. Just as Moses told them, \"thus did they do.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:6) \"And there were men who were unclean by the body of a man, and they could not offer the Pesach on that day\": Who were those men? They were the bearers of Joseph's casket. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They were Mishael and Eltzafan, who had become tamei by (the bodies of Nadav and Avihu). R. Yitzchak says: If they were the bearers of Joseph's casket, they could have cleansed themselves (in time to eat the Paschal offering), and if they were Mishael and Eltzafan, they could have cleansed themselves. Rather, they were men who had become unclean by contact with a meth-mitzvah (a body with none to bury it, but themselves), their seventh (and final) day of uncleanliness falling out on Pesach eve. \"And they drew near before Moses and before Aaron on that day\": Is it possible that Moses did not know (the halachah) and Aaron did know? — Invert the verse (i.e., \"they came before Aaron and Moses\") and expound it (i.e., they came before Aaron and he did not know and then they came before Moses.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they (the men) came and stood before them. We are hereby (by their asking) apprised that they were devout men, solicitous of the mitzvah. (Ibid. 7) \"and those men said to him\": Is it not already written (Ibid. 6) \"the men\"? What is the intent of \"those men\"? We are hereby apprised that only the one affected (by the question) makes the inquiry (and not his representative). \"Why should we be held back (not to offer the sacrifice of the L-rd in its appointed time\")? Moses: Offerings, (in this instance, the Pesach offering), are not offered in a state of tumah. They: This may be true of offerings which have a backup (i.e., which if not offered now may be offered later, but is it true of offerings (i.e., the Pesach offering) which have no backup (and which must be offered on the fourteenth of Nissan)? Moses: Offerings may not be eaten in a state of tumah. They: If so, let the blood (of the Pesach offering) be sprinkled on the unclean ones, and the flesh be eaten by the clean ones. And this would, indeed, follow. If a sin-offering, which is holy of holies — its blood is sprinkled on the unclean ones, and its flesh is eaten by the clean ones (the Cohanim), then the Paschal offering, a lower-order offering — how much more so should its blood be sprinkled on the unclean ones and its flesh be eaten by the clean ones! Moses; I have not heard (the halachah). (Ibid. 8) \"Stand, and I will hear (what the L-rd will command concerning you\") — as one would say: \"I will hear the thing from my teacher's mouth.\" Happy the woman's son who was so confident that whenever he wished He would speak with him! R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew that a tamei does not eat the Pesach offering. What was their dispute? As to whether the blood is sprinkled upon them or not. It were fitting that the section on the tamei'im be related (independently) by Moses. Why was it related through them? For merit is conveyed through the meritorious and liability through the liable."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:9-10) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A man if he be unclean by a dead body, etc.\": This is something that he (Moses) asked (of the L-rd). \"or on a distant way\": This is something that he did not ask. \"if he be unclean by a dead body.\" This tells me only of one who is tamei by a dead body. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that Pesach Sheni is observed] for) other types of tumah? From \"or if he were on a distant way.\" You induce (binyan av) from both, viz.: \"tamei by a dead body\" is not like \"distant way,\" and \"distant way\" is not like \"tamei by a dead body.\" What is common to both is that one who did not observe the first Pesach observes Pesach Sheni — So, all who could not observe the first Pesach observe Pesach Sheni. \"on a distant way\": I do not know what constitutes \"a distant way.\" R. Akiva says: It is written \"tamei by a dead body\" and \"distant way.\" Just as in the fist instance, he desired to observe but could not, so, in the second, he desired to observe but could not; and the sages delimited (\"distant way\" as applying to) anyone who at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was at a distance from Modi'im (fifteen miles from Jerusalem) and beyond, along the entire circumference. R. Eliezer says \"distant way\" is stated in respect to the tithe (viz. Devarim 14:24), and \"distant way\" is stated in respect to Pesach. Just as \"distant way\" in respect to the tithe connotes outside the place where it is eaten, so, \"distant way\" in respect to Pesach. Which is the place where it is eaten? From the entrance of Jerusalem within. R. Yehudah says: \"distant way\" is stated in respect to Pesach, and \"distant way\" is stated in respect to the tithe. Just as \"distant way\" in respect to Pesach connotes outside the place of its (the Paschal lamb's) fitness, (i.e., the azarah [the Temple court]) so, \"distant way\" in respect to the tithe. And what is the place of its fitness? (All of Jerusalem) from the azarah outwards.",
            " \"from a distant (rechokah) way\": There is a (diacritical) dot above the heh in \"rechokah\" (to indicate that he observes Pesach Sheni) even if he were on a non-distant way and did not observe (the first) Pesach with them. Similarly, (Bereshit 16;5) \"May the L-rd judge between me (Sarah) and between you (Abraham) (uvenecha)\": There is a dot above (the yod in) \"uvenecha\" — She spoke of Hagar alone. Others say: (She spoke of Hagar) who engendered strife between him and her. Similarly, (Ibid. 18:9) \"And they said to him (eilav): Where is Sarah, your wife?\" There are dots above the aleph, yod and vav (in \"eilav\") — They knew where she was. Similarly (Ibid. 19:33) \"and he did not know in her lying and in her rising (uvekumah).\" There is a dot above (the vav in) \"uvekumah\" — He did not know in her lying and in her rising, but he knew in her rising. Similarly, (Ibid. 33:4) \"And he (Esav) kissed (vayishakehu) him (Jacob)\": There are dots above (all the letters in) \"vayishakehu\" — He did not kiss him with all his heart. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is a known halachah that Esav hates Jacob, but his mercy gained the ascendancy at that time and he kissed him with all his heart. (Ibid. 37:12) \"And his brothers went to graze eth their father's flock in Shchem\": There are dots above \"eth\" — They went only to graze themselves. Similarly, (Bamidbar 21:30) \"We have laid it waste until Nofach which (asher) reaches unto Medva\": There is a dot (above the resh in \"asher\") — They did so beyond that (Nofach) too, but here they destroyed the cities, too, whereas beyond that they destroyed only the people. Similarly, (Ibid. 3:39) \"All the numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron numbered\": There are dots above \"Aaron\" — Aaron was not of the numbered (of the Levites). Similarly, (Ibid. 3:29) \"And issaron, issaron, for the one lamb,\": There is a dot above the second vav in \"And issaron\" — There was one issaron alone. Similarly, (Devarim 29:28) \"The hidden things are for the L-rd our G-d and the revealed ones are for us and our children (lanu ulevanenu) forever.\": There are dots (above \"lanu ulevanenu.\") He said to them: If you have done (i.e., violated) what is revealed, I (the L-rd), likewise, will apprise you of what is concealed. Here, too, (in our instance,) there is a dot (above the heh in \"rechokah\" to indicate that he observes Pesach Sheni) even if he were on a non-distant way and did not observe (the first) Pesach with them. (Ibid. 10) \"or to your generations\": This provision (of Pesach Sheni) obtains for all of the generations. (Ibid. 11) \"In the second month, on the fourteenth day, towards evening shall they offer it\": These are the mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, viz. (Shemot 12:5) \"an unblemished lamb, a male, of the first year.\" \"with matzoh and bitter herbs shall they eat it\": These are mitzvoth attendant upon its body. (Devarim, Ibid. 12) \"They shall not leave over of it until the morning, and a bone shall they not break in it\": Scripture hereby superadds two mitzvoth concerning its body. This tells me only of these (as obtaining on Pesach Sheni). Whence do I derive (the same for) the other mitzvoth pertaining to its body? From (Ibid.) \"According to all the statue of the Pesach shall they offer it.\" — But perhaps this would also include (the eating of) matzoth for seven days and the burning of chametz! It is, therefore, written \"and a bone shall they not break in it.\" \"a bone, etc.\" was included in the general category (viz. \"According to all the statute of the Pesach\"), and it departed from the category (for special mention) — to teach about the category, viz. Just as \"a bone, etc.\" is a mitzvah (directly) pertaining to its body, so, \"according to all the statute of the Pesach\" speaks of mitzvoth (directly) pertaining to its body, (and not of the others). Issi b. Akavya says: \"shall they offer it\": Scripture speaks of mitzvoth pertaining to its body."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:12) \"shall they offer it\": I might think that Pesach Sheni obtains both with an individual and with the congregation; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) \"And there were men\" (i.e., individuals). Pesach Sheni obtains with individuals and not with the congregation. R. Nathan said: This (derivation) is not needed. It is already written (Ibid. 13) \"And the man who is clean, etc.\": Pesach Sheni obtains with the individual and not with the congregation. \"and who failed to offer the Pesach\": \"who failed\" connotes one who could, but did not. And the sages estimated this (i.e., \"one who could\") as pertaining to anyone who at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was at a distance from Modi'im (fifteen miles from Jerusalem) and within, along the entire circumference \"that soul shall be cut off\": \"cutting off\" connotes a cessation. \"that soul\": (who sinned) deliberately. These are the words of R. Akiva. \"from its people\": But its people will remain at peace. \"shall be cut off\": This refers to the first Pesach. \"For the sacrifice of the L-rd he did not offer in its appointed time. His sin shall he bear\": This refers to Pesach Sheni. He incurs the penalty of kareth (\"cutting off\") for (transgression) of both the first Pesach and of Pesach Sheni. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Nathan says \"For the sacrifice of the L-rd he did not offer in its appointed time.\" This refers to the first Pesach. He is liable for (kareth) for (violation of) the first Pesach, but not for the second. \"in its appointed time\": What is the intent of this? To teach that Pesach Sheni overrides the Sabbath. — But perhaps (the intent is that) just as the first Pesach overrides both the Sabbath and (congregational) tumah, so, Pesach Sheni overrides both the Sabbath and (individual) tumah! Would you say that? Its entire reason for being is his being tamei (on the first Pesach). Shall he then come offer it in tumah (on Pesach Sheni)? \"His sin shall he bear, that man.\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From (Ibid.) \"then that soul shall be cut off from its people\" — to include a woman. If so, why is it written \"man\"? A man, and not a minor."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 9:14) \"And if there live a proselyte among you, and he would offer a Pesach to the L-rd, etc.\": I might think that as soon as he converts he offers a Pesach; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) (\"One statute shall there be for you, both) for the proselyte (and for the native\"). Just as the native (offers) on the fourteenth (of Nissan), so, the proselyte. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: If one became a proselyte between the two Pesachs, I might think he observes Pesach Sheni; it is, therefore, written \"for the proselyte and for the native.\" Just as the native who (is obligated to observe the first Pesach and) could not do so observes Pesach Sheni, so all, who are thus obligated, (to exclude from Pesach Sheni the proselyte in the above instance.) \"according to the statue of the Pesach\": This tells me only of the Pesach that the proselyte is equated with the native. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the mitzvoth of the Torah? From \"One statute shall there be for you, both for the proselyte and for the native of the land.\" Scripture hereby equates the proselyte with the native in respect to all the mitzvoth of the Torah."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:2-3) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Make for yourself two trumpets of silver\": Why was this section stated? Because it is written (Ibid. 9:23) \"By word of the L-rd they encamped, and by word of the L-rd they traveled,\" I might think that since they traveled by the Word and encamped by the Word, there was no need of trumpets; it is, therefore, written \"Make for yourself, etc.\" Scripture hereby tells us that even though they travel by word of the L-rd and encamp by word of the L-rd, trumpets are still needed. \"Make for yourself\": from what is yours. Similarly, \"Take for yourself\": from what is yours. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: Just as it is written (Devarim 10:1) \"At that time the L-rd said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone … and make for yourself an ark of wood,\" and it came only from the congregation,\" as it is written (Shemot 25:10) \"And they shall make an ark of shittim wood,\" so, (we are to understand that in instances of) \"Make for yourself,\" \"Take for yourself,\" (the materials are coming) from the congregation. Why, then, is it written \"make for yourself an ark of wood\"? Here (\"they shall make\" [It is regarded as theirs]) — when they are doing the L-rd's will. There (\"make for yourself\" [It is regarded as yours (Moses')]) — when they are not doing the L-rd's will. \"trumpets\": The minimum of trumpets is two. — But perhaps if he wanted to add, he could add. It is, therefore, written \"two trumpets\" — not more and not less. Variantly: \"two trumpets\": they were to be similar in appearance, height, and beauty. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"miksheh\": from a solid bar (of silver). \"miksheh\" connotes the work of a craftsman, a hard substance, and beaten work. \"and they shall be for you for convoking the congregation\": to gather the congregation for the traveling of the camps."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:3-4) \"And when they (the Cohanim) blow with (both) of them, then all the congregation shall gather unto you, to the door of the tent of meeting. And if they blow with one, there shall gather unto you the chiefs.\" — But we have not heard to where (the chiefs are to gather). It follows (by induction), viz. \"Blowing\" is written in respect to the congregation, and \"blowing\" is written in respect to the chiefs. Just as the first (gathering) is at the door of the tent of meeting, so, the second. I might think that all who are (written) first in Scripture (in this instance, the congregation) are first in the act (of gathering). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:2) \"And Moses spoke (first) to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel\": Since \"speaking\" is mentioned in the Torah unqualified (as to the order of speaking), and in one instance it is explicitly mentioned that the chiefs take precedence, so I induce that in all instances of \"speaking\" the chiefs take precedence. R. Yonathan said: (The above derivation is) not needed. For it is already written (Shemot 34:31-32) \"And Moses called to them, and there returned to him Aaron and all the chiefs of the congregation and Moses spoke to them. And afterwards all the children of Israel drew near, etc.\" Since \"speaking\" is mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance it is mentioned that the chiefs take precedence, so I induce that in all instances of speaking the chiefs take precedence. What, then, is the intent of \"And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes, etc.\"? To teach (by juxtaposition with 30:3) that annulment of vows is effected only by experts.",
            " (Bamidbar 10:5) \"And you shall sound a blast\" (\"Utekatem teruah\"): A teruah (a rapid succession of three notes, tremolo) by itself, and tekiah (a long, sustained sound) by itself. You say, a tekiah by itself and a teruah by itself. But perhaps (in this context) tekiah and teruah are one and the same? (This cannot be, for) (7) \"And when the people are to be gathered, you shall sound a tekiah and not a teruah\" indicates that tekiah and teruah are distinct sounds. \"utekatem teruah\": We are hereby taught that a tekiah precedes a teruah. Whence is it derived that a teruah (also) follows a teruah? From (Ibid. 6) :\"teruah yitkeu\" (\"a teruah shall they blow.\") R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: This (derivation) is not needed. It is written (Ibid.) \"And when you blow a second teruah.\" Let \"second\" not be written. Why is it written? To serve as a prototype (binyan av) for the tekiah, that it be second (i.e., after) the teruah — whence we learn that (in sum he blows) tekiah-teruah-tekiah. This tells me only of (the order in) the desert. Whence do I derive (the same for the order on) Rosh Hashanah? It is written \"teruah\" here and it is written \"teruah\" elsewhere (re Rosh Hashanah). Just as \"teruah\" here — tekiah-teruah-tekiah, so, \"teruah\" there — tekiah-teruah-tekiah. Three \"teruoth\" are written in respect to Rosh Hashanah: (Vayikra 23:24) \"Shabbaton zichron teruah,\" (Ibid. 25:9) \"Veha'avarta shofar teruah,\" (Bamidbar 29:1) \"Yom teruah yihiyeh lachem\" — two tekioth for each (teruah). In sum, on Rosh Hashanah there are three teruoth and six tekioth — two (sets of tekiah-teruah-tekiah) prescribed by the Torah, and one by the scribes: \"Shabbaton zichron teruah,\" \"veha'avarta shofar teruah\" — by the Torah. \"Yom teruah yihiyeh lachem\" — This comes for its teaching (that the shofar is blown in the daytime [\"yom\"], and not at night). R. Shmuel b. Nachmani says in the name of R. Yonathan: One prescribed by the Torah; two prescribed by the scribes. \"Shabbaton zichron teruah\" — by the Torah. \"veha'avarta shofar teruah\" and \"yom teruah yihiyeh lachem\" — These come for their teachings, (\"veha'avarta\") to teach that there is an unbroken sound (tekiah) before the teruah, and \"yom,\" to teach that the shofar is blown in the daytime.",
            " (Bamidbar 10:5) \"And when you blow a teruah, then there shall travel the eastern encampments. (6) And when you blow a second teruah, then there shall travel the southern encampments\": Perhaps just as he blows (tekiah-teruah-tekiah [separately]) for the eastern and southern (encampments), thus does he blow (them separately) for the northern and western encampments. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"a teruah (i.e., tekiah-teruah-tekiah) shall they blow for their travels\" — one tekiah (i.e., one set tekiah-teruah-tekiah) for two sides (together, the northern and the western). Other say: (The meaning is) three (i.e., three blowings, tekiah-teruah-tekiah) for each side (northern and western individually)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:7) \"And when the assembly is to be gathered, you shall blow a tekiah, but not a teruah.\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 2) \"And they (the trumpets) shall be for you for convoking the congregation and for the traveling of the camps,\" just as the convoking of the congregation is with two (trumpets), viz. (Ibid. 3) \"And when they blow with them, etc.,\" so, the traveling of the camps is with two. I might then think that just as the traveling of the camps is with tekiah-teruah-tekiah, so, the convoking of the congregation; it is, therefore, written \"And when the assembly is to be gathered, you shall blow a tekiah, but not a teruah.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:8) \"And the sons of Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the trumpets\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) \"And they shall blow with them,\" I would think that Israelites, too, may do so; it is, therefore, written \"the sons of Aaron.\" \"the Cohanim\": whether whole or blemished. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: whole, not blemished, viz.: It is written here \"Cohanim,\" and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 3:2) \"Cohanim.\" Just as there, whole, not blemished; here, too, whole, not blemished. R. Tarfon: Akiva, how long will you pile up words against us! May I lose my sons if I did not see Shimon, my mother's brother, who was lame in one leg, standing and blowing the trumpets! R. Akiva: Might it be that you saw this on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year? R. Tarfon: I swear that you have not erred! Happy are you Abraham our father, from whose loins Akiva came forth! Tarfon saw and forgot (the day). Akiva expounded of himself and seconded the halachah. Anyone who departs from you departs from his life! (Ibid.) \"And they (the trumpets) shall be to you for a statute forever\": What is the intent of this? From \"Make for yourself two silver trumpets,\" I would understand that once he made them they would be a heirloom for (all) the generations. It is, therefore, written \"to you for a statute forever.\" They have been given as a statute and not for (all) the generations. From here they said: All the implements that Moses made in the desert were kasher for all of the generations, except the trumpets."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:9) \"And if you go to war in your land\": whether you go out against them or they come against you. Does this speak of the foe that assails you in the war of Gog and Magog or of wars in general? It is written (Ibid.) \"and you will be saved from your enemies.\" Go out and see: In which war is Israel saved without subjugation to follow? In the war of Gog and Magog, as it is written (Zechariah 14:3, 9) \"And the L-rd will go out and wage war against those nations … And the L-rd will be King over all the land.\" R. Akiva says: This (\"then you shall sound the trumpets\") tells me only of war. Whence do I derive (the same for) blast, mildew, difficult labors, and tempest-tossed vessels? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"against the oppressor that oppresses you\" — against any \"oppression\" that may befall the people. \"then you shall sound the trumpets and you will be remembered before the L-rd your G-d.\" R. Akiva says: Now do the trumpets cause remembrance (before the L-rd)? The intent is that if they were in a position to blow (the trumpets) but failed to do so, it is reckoned to them as if they were not remembered before the L-rd. \"and you will be remembered … and you will be saved.\" Whenever Israel is \"remembered,\" it is remembered only for salvation."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:10) \"And on the day of your rejoicing and on your appointed times you shall sound the trumpets\": \"And on the day\": Sabbaths. R. Nathan says: These are temidim (the daily burnt-offerings). \"your rejoicings\": These are the three festivals. \"and in your appointed times\": These are Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. \"and on your new moons\": as stated. \"over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings\": Scripture speaks of the sacrifices of communal peace-offerings. — But perhaps (it speaks of) both communal and individual (offerings). Would you say that? What is the context? (the blowing of the trumpets for the convoking and the traveling of) the congregation; here, too, the (offerings of) the congregation (are understood). R. Shimon b. Azzai says: Scripture speaks of communal offerings. — But perhaps both communal and individual. It is, therefore, written \"over your burnt-offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings.\" Just as burnt-offerings are holy of holies, so peace-offerings (in this context) are holy of holies. And just as peace-offerings (to be holy of holies) are communal offerings, so, burnt-offerings (in this context) are communal offerings. \"And they shall be for you as a remembrance before your G-d\": Why is this mentioned (in this context)? Because it is written \"you shall sound the trumpets,\" I might think that offerings over which the trumpets were sounded are kasher, but not those over which the trumpets were not sounded; it is, therefore, written \"And they shall be for you as a remembrance\" — They (the trumpets) were given as a remembrance, and not to validate the offering. \"I am the L-rd your G-d\": What is the intent of this? It is written (Vayikra 23:24) \"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: On the seventh month, on the first day of the month, there shall be for you a resting, remembrance, teruah\": \"remembrance\" — These are verses of remembrance (zichronoth); \"teruah\" — These are verses (evocative of) the shofar (teruoth). But malchuyoth (i.e., verses evocative of His Kingship) we have not heard. It is, therefore, written here \"You shall sound the trumpets … and they shall be to you for a remembrance … I am the L-rd your G-d.\" \"You shall sound the trumpet\" — shofaroth; \"remembrance\" — zichronoth; \"I am the L-rd our G-d\" — malchuyoth. Wherever there are zichronoth and shofaroth, there must be malchuyoth along with them. R. Nathan says: This is not needed (for the inclusion of malchuyoth), for it is written (Bamidbar 23:21) \"The L-rd, his G-d, is with him (Israel) and the teruah of the King is in him\" — This is shofaroth and malchuyoth. And why did the sages see fit to say malchuyoth first, and then zichronoth and shofaroth? Make Him King over your first, and then beseech Him for mercy to be remembered unto Him. And with what (i.e., through which agency?) The shofar. For \"shofar\" connotes freedom, as in (Isaiah 27:13) \"And it shall be on that day that a great shofar shall be blown, etc.\" But I would not know who will blow it; it is, therefore, written (Zechariah 9:14) \"And the L-rd G-d will blow with a shofar.\" And we still would not know whence the tekiah would come forth. It is, therefore, written (Isaiah 66:6) \"The sound of the havoc comes from the city (Jerusalem), the Voice from the sanctuary of the L-rd, sending recompense to His foes!\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:29) \"And Moses said to Chovav (Yithro) the son of Reuel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses\": Was Chovav the father-in-law of Moses, or Reuel, viz. (Shemot 2:8) \"And they came to Reuel, their father, etc.\"? — (Judges 4:11) \"And Chever the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, from the children of Chovav, the father-in-law of Moses\" (indicates that) his name was Chovav and not Reuel. How, then, are we to understand \"And they came to Reuel their father\"? We are hereby apprised that the young children called their father's father \"father.\" R. Shimon b. Menassia says: His name was Reuel, \"the friend (re'a) of G-d,\" viz. (Shemot 5:12) \"And Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before G-d.\" R. Dostai says: His name was Keini, for he had separated from the provocative deeds of the kanai (\"the provokers\"), who provoke the L-rd, viz. (Devarim 32:21) \"They provoked Me (kinuni) with a no-god,\" and (Ezekiel 8:3) \"where was the seat of the provocative image of provocation (\"semel hakinah hamekaneh\"). R. Yossi says: His name was Keini, for he had acquired (kanah) Torah for himself. R. Yishmael b. R. Yossi says: His name was Reuel, for he had befriended G-d, viz. (Proverbs 27:10) \"Your Friend and the Friend of your father do not forsake.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: He had two names — Chovav and Yithro. \"Yithro,\" because he added a section (\"Yithro\") to the Torah, viz. (Shemot 18:21) \"And (Yithro said) you shall see from all the people men of valor, etc.\" Now were these things (of appointing judges) not known to Moses from Sinai, viz. (Ibid. 23) \"If you do this thing and G-d commands you\"? And why did they escape Moses? To credit the thing to Yithro. \"Chovav,\" because he loved (\"chivev\") the Torah. For we find no other proselyte who loved the Torah as Yithro did. And just as Yithro loved the Torah, so did his descendants love the Torah, viz. (I Chronicles 2:55) \"and the families of scribes who dwelt in Yabetz: Tirathim, Shimathim, Suchathim. (These were the Kenites, etc.\") \"Tirathim\" — because they heard the teruah from Mount Sinai. \"Tirathim\" — because they cried out (\"mathri'im) and fasted. \"Tirathim\" — because they did not shave themselves (\"ta'ar\" is a blade). \"Tirathim\" — because they sat in the gates (\"tara\" is a gate) of Jerusalem. \"Shimathim\" — because they did not anoint themselves with oil (because of their mourning over the destruction of the Temple). \"Suchathim\" — because they dwelt in succoth. \"who dwelt in Yabetz\": They left Yericho and went to Yabetz, to the desert of Judah in the south of Arad to learn Torah from him (Yabetz), viz. (Ibid. 4:10) \"And Yabetz called out to the G-d of Israel … and G-d granted him what he requested.\" They were chassidim, who entreated G-d for someone to learn from, and he was a chassid who entreated G-d for someone to teach. The chassidim came to learn from the chassid, as it is written (Judges 1:16) \"And the sons of the Keini, the father-in-law of Moses, etc.\", and (Jeremiah 25:12) \"Go to the house of the Rechavim and speak to them, and bring them to the house of the L-rd, etc.\", and (Ibid. 6) \"And they said: We will not drink wine for Yonadav the son of Rechav our father commanded us, saying … and a house you shall not build and seed you shall not sow … so that you may live many years on the land where you live\" — Since this house (the Temple) is destined to be destroyed, see it as if it is already destroyed. (Ibid. 8-10) \"And we heeded the vice of Yonadav ben Rechav our father … and we live in tents, for we heeded and did according to everything that Yonadav our father commanded us.\" And whence is it derived that the sons of Yonadav ben Rechav were of the sons of the sons of Yithro? For it is written (I Chronicles 2:55) \"These were the Keinites, who descended from Chammath, the father of the house of the Rechavim.\" And what was their reward for this? (Jeremiah 35:18) \"And to the Rechavim Jeremiah said: Thus said the L-rd of hosts, the G-d of Israel: Because you have heeded the command of Yonadav your father … (19) there will not be cut off from Yonadav ben Rechav one who stands before Me all of the days.\" R. Yehoshua says: Now may proselytes enter the sanctuary? Rather, they sat in the Sanhedrin and taught Torah. Others say: Some of their daughters were wed to Cohanim and their descendents entered the sanctuary. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If those, who drew near (to Israel), were thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near!) And thus do you find with Rachav Hazonah. What is written (of her)? (I Chronicles 4:21) \"And the families of the house of the linen work, of the house of Ashbea\": \"the families\" — Rachav Hazonah (\"the feeder\"), who kept an inn to feed her family. \"the linen work\" — She hid the spies among the linens. \"the house of Ashbea\" — The spies swore (\"nisb'u\") to her (to spare her family). Eight prophets, issued from Rachav Hazonah: Yirmiyahu, Chilkiyahu, Serayah, Machseyah, Baruch, Neriah, Chanamel, and Shalom. R. Yehudah says: Chuldah the prophetess was also of the descendants of Rachav Hazonah, as it is written (II Kings 22:14) \"And Chilkiyahu the Cohein and Achikam and Achbor and Shafan and Asayah went to Chuldah the prophetess, the wife of Shalom the son of Tikvah, etc.\" And it is written (Joshua 2:18) \"behold, when we (the spies) come to the land, you (Rachav) shall bind this line (tikvah) of scarlet thread, etc.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If she, who came from a people of whom it is written (Devarim 20:16) \"You shall not spare any soul,\" because she drew near (to Israel), was thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near!) And thus do you find with the Giveonites. What is written of them? (I Chronicles 4:22) \"And Yokim and the men of Chezeva. \"And Yokim\" — Joshua fulfilled (\"kiyem\") for them his oath (to spare them). \"Chezeva\" — they deceived (\"kizvu\") Joshua, saying (Joshua 9:9) \"From a very distant land did your servants come,\" and not from Eretz Yisrael.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If these, who came from a people consigned to destruction, because they drew near (to Israel), were thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near)! And thus do you find with Ruth the Moavitess. What did she say to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17) \"Your people is my people, and your G-d is my G-d. Where you will die, I will die.\" The L-rd said to her: You have lost nothing. kingdom is yours in this world and in the world to come. What is written (of her)? (I Chronicles 4:22) \"and Yoash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moav.\" Yoash and Saraph are Machlon and Kilyon (viz. Ruth 1:2-6) \"Yoash\" — they despaired (nithya'ashu) of redemption. \"Saraph\" — they were liable to (the penalty of) burning, to the L-rd. \"who had dominion over Moav\" — they married Moavite women and left Eretz Yisrael and went and sojourned in the field of Moav. (I Chronicles, Ibid.) \"and Yashuvilechem\" — this is Ruth the Moavitess, who returned and dwelt in Beth Lechem. (Ibid.) \"And these are ancient things\" — each is discussed in its place. (Ibid. 23) \"These are 'the keepers'\" — the sons of Yonadav ben Rechav, who kept the oath of their father. \"and the dwellers among the plants\" — Solomon, who was like a (flourishing) plant in his kingdom. \"and gedeirah (\"the fence\") — Sanhedrin, who sit and delimit the \"fences\" of Torah. \"With the king in his work they sat there\" — Ruth the Moavitess did not die until she saw Solomon, the grandson of her grandson (Yishai) sitting on his throne of kingdom, as it is written (I Kings 2:19) \"And he (Solomon) sat on his throne, and he placed a seat for the mother of the king\" — the mother of kingdom (i.e., Ruth). \"and she sat at his right hand\": as he busied himself with the work of the Temple, viz.: (I Chronicles, Ibid.) \"with the king in his work they sat there. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If she, who was of the people of whom it is written (I Kings 11:2) \"You shall not come into them, and they shall not come into you,\" because she drew near (to Israel), she was drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so! And if you would ask: But where do we see this (that the L-rd draws them near) with Israel? It is written (Shemot 1:15) \"And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, the first of whom was named Shifrah; and the second, Puah\": Shifra is Yocheved (Moses' mother). Puah is Miriam (Moses' sister). \"Shifra\" — because she \"beautifies (meshapereth) the child. \"Puah\" — because she \"coos\" (poeh) to the child. Variantly: \"Shifra\" — because Israel was fruitful (paru) and multiplied in her days. \"Puah\" — because she moaned (poah) and wept over her brother, as it is written (Ibid. 2:4) \"And his sister stood from afar to know what would be done with him.\" (Ibid. 1:16) \"And he (Pharaoh) said: When you deliver the Hebrew women … (17) and the midwives feared G-d … (21) and He made for them (the midwives) houses\": I would not know what these \"houses\" were if not for (I Kings 9:10) \"And it was at the end of twenty years that Solomon built the two houses — the house of the L-rd and the house of the king.\" \"the house of the L-rd\" — the priesthood; \"the house of the king\" — royalty. Yocheved attained to priesthood, and Miriam, to royalty. As it is written (I Chronicles 4:4) \"These were the sons of Chur, the first-born of Efrathah, the father of Beth-lechem\": \"Efrathah\" — Miriam, who married Calev, viz.: (I Chronicles 2:19) \"And Calev took Efrath, and she bore to him Chur,\" and (Ibid. 50) \"These were the sons of Calev, the son of Chur, the first-born of Efrathah, the father of Beth-lechem. \"Efrathah\" — This is the (royal) house of David, as it is written (I Samuel 17:12) \"And David was the son of an Efrati man of Beth-lechem.\"",
            " (I Chronicles 4:5) \"And Ashchur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Chelah and Na'arah.\" Ashchur is Calev. Why was he called \"Ashchur\"? Because his face was \"blackened\" (hushcharu\") with fasting. \"the father\" — He was like a father to her (Miriam). \"Tekoa\" — He \"pegged\" (taka) his heart to his father in heaven. \"two wives\" — Miriam, who became to him like \"two wives.\" \"Chelah and Na'arah\": At first she was sick (cholah), and then she \"awakened\" (na'arah). (Ibid. 7) \"And the sons of Chelah were Tzereth, Tzochar, and Ethnan\": Tzereth — she became a \"vexation\" (tzarah) to her co-wife, (who envied her). Tzochar — Her face was resplendent as mid-day (tzoharayim). \"and Ethnan\" — Anyone who saw her brought an \"exchange\" (for cohabitation) to his wife. (Ibid. 8) \"And Kotz begot Anuv and Hatzovevah\": \"Kotz\" is Calev, who \"spurned\" (katzath) the counsel of the spies. \"Anuv\" — he generated good in the bringing of the grape cluster (viz. Bamidbar 13:23) for if not for Calev they would not have brought it. \"and Hatzovevah\" — he did the will (tzivyon) of the Holy One blessed be He. \"and the families of Acharchel the son of Charum. \"and the families of Acharchel\" — This is Miriam, viz. (Shemot 15:20) \"and all the women went out after (\"achar\") her (Miriam) with timbrels and dances.\" \"and the families\" — He (Calev) merited establishing families from her. \"the son of Charum\" — This is Yocheved, of whom (the Cohanim) it is written (Bamidbar 18:14) \"Every devoted thing (\"cherem\") in Israel shall be yours,\" (the Cohanim - Levites descending from Yocheved). Variantly: This (\"Charum\") is Miriam from whom there issued forth David, whose kingdom was exalted (\"romem\") by the Holy One Blessed be He, viz. (I Samuel 2:10) \"And He will give strength to His king and He will exalt the horn of His anointed one.\" We find, then, that David came from the descendants of Miriam — whence we derive \"One who draws near (to Israel) is drawn near by Heaven.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 10:29) \"the father-in-law of Moses\": This is the highest tribute of all, to be called \"the father-in-law of Moses. \"We are traveling\" (immediately to Eretz Yisrael). \"We are traveling\": R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Is it not already written (Devarim 4:22) \"For I shall not cross the Jordan\"? (To teach) that even his bones will not cross the Jordan. Why, then, did Moses include himself with them? He said: Now Israel will say: If he who took us out of Egypt and performed all the miracles and mighty acts for us does not enter, we, too, will not enter. Variantly: Why did Moses include himself with them? So that Yithro not say, If Moses does not enter, I, too, will not come. The sages say: Why did Moses include himself with them? He \"lost sight\" (of having been told that he would not enter) and he felt himself entering with them to Eretz Yisrael. \"to the place of which the L-rd said: It will I give to you\" — and proselytes have no portion in it. How, then, am I to satisfy (Ezekiel 47:23) \"And it shall be, with the tribe with which the proselyte dwells, there shall you give his portion\"? If it cannot speak of inheritance, understand it as speaking of atonement — that if he lived among the tribe of Judah, he was atoned for with (the communal offerings of) the tribe of Judah; (If he lived among) the tribe of Benjamin, he was atoned for with the tribe of Benjamin. Variantly: If it cannot speak of inheritance, understand it as speaking of burial — that proselytes are allotted burial in Eretz Yisrael. \"Come with us and we will do good with you\": Is there a member of a man's household for which good is not done? It follows a fortiori — If good is done for a member of a man's household, how much more so, for \"a member of the household\" (i.e., Yithro) of Him who spoke and brought the world into being! \"for the L-rd has spoken good for Israel\": Now did He not speak good for Israel until now? The L-rd always spoke good for Israel! (The intent is) rather, that the L-rd commanded Israel to do good for the proselytes and to deport themselves to them with humility."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:30) \"And he said to him: I will not go; but to my land and to my kindred I will go\": He said to him: Both because of my land and because of my kindred I will not go (with you). There are some who have a land, but no possessions; others who have possessions, but no family. But I have a land, possessions, and family, and I was a priest in my land. If I will not go (home) because of my land, I will go because of my possessions; and if I will not go because of my possessions, I will go because of my family."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:30) \"And he said: I pray (\"na\") you, do not leave us.\" \"Na\" is a term of imploration. He said to him: If you do not take it upon yourself (to remain with us), I decree it upon you. For now, (if you leave,) Israel will say: Yithro became a proselyte not out of love, but only in expectation of a portion in the land, which, seeing not to be forthcoming, he abandoned us. Variantly: (Moses said to him:) You think you are increasing G-d's honor (by planning to make conversions in your land.) You are only diminishing it! How many (prospective) proselytes would take shelter under the wings of the Shechinah (if you remained.) But now, you are closing the door against them. They will say: If Yithro, the father-in-law of the king, did not take it upon himself (to remain with Israel), how much more so, we! \"inasmuch as you have known our camping ('chanothenu') in the desert\": Moses said to him: If another, who had not seen the miracles and wonders wrought for us in the desert, up and left, it might befit him, but you, who have seen them, can you do so? R. Yehudah says you who saw the \"chein\" (\"favor\" [a homiletic reading of \"chanothenu\"]) bestowed upon our fathers in Egypt, viz. (Shemot 12:36) \"And the L-rd placed the favor of the people in the eyes of Egypt,\" would you pick up and leave? \"and you have been 'eyes' for us\": And not that alone, but in all things that were concealed from our eyes, you enlightened us, viz. (Ibid. 18:21) \"And you shall see from all the people, etc.\" Now were these things (of appointing judges) not known to Moses from Sinai, viz. (Ibid. 23) \"If you do this thing and G-d commands you, then you will be able to bear up\"? And why did they escape Moses? To credit the thing to Yithro. Variantly (\"and you have been 'eyes' for us\"): that he (the proselyte) be as beloved by us as the apple of our eye, viz. (Devarim 10:19) \"And you shall love the stranger,\" (Shemot 22:2) \"And a stranger you shall not taunt and you shall not oppress.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:32) \"And it shall be, if you go with us, that good which the L-rd will accord to us, we shall accord to you.\" Now what good did they accord to him? They said: When Israel apportioned the land, they left to him the choicest land of Jericho, five hundred by five hundred cubits. Whoever would build the Temple, would take that land, and (in the interim) it was given (as a holding) to the sons of Yithro, as it is written (I Kings 6:1) \"And it was in the four hundred and eighteenth year of the exodus of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt\" (that the Temple was built). Deduct forty years for their journeying in the desert, and we find them (the sons of Yithro) to have eaten of that land for four hundred and forty years, and when the Shechinah reposed itself in the portion of Benjamin, the sons of Benjamin came to take their portion, and they (the sons of Yithro) vacated it for them."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:33) \"And they journeyed from the mountain of the L-rd a journey of three days\": Is it not written (Devarim 1:2) \"eleven days from Chorev .. until Kadesh Barnea\"? What, then, is the intent of \"And they journeyed … a journey of three days\"? They traveled on that day a three-day journey, and the Shechinah preceded them, so that they could enter the land immediately. [It is the way of men who go to war, that when they start, they rejoice, and the longer they exert themselves the more they weaken. Not so, however, with Israel — the more they exert themselves, the more they rejoice, and they say \"Let us go and inherit Eretz Yisrael,\" viz. (Joshua 4:10) \"And the people hastened and they crossed\" (the Jordan). Our fathers said: Once they sinned, it was decreed against them (Bamidbar 14:29) \"In this desert will your carcasses fall.\" But we will not sin and die; we will go and inherit Eretz Yisrael!\"] (Bamidbar 10:33) \"And the ark of the covenant of the L-rd preceded them.\" This ark that preceded them contained the broken tablets, but the ark containing the tablets moved in the midst of the encampments, as it is written (Bamidbar 14:44) \"and the ark of the covenant of Moses and the L-rd did not stir from the midst of the camp.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It is not written \"And the ark of the L-rd,\" but \"and the ark of the covenant of the L-rd.\" An analogy: A viceroy precedes his army to prepare a camp ground for them; thus does the Shechinah precede Israel. \"to look out a resting place for them\": This is the intent of (Bamidbar 21:1) \"And the Canaanite heard, the king of Arad, that Israel was coming by way of Atharim, etc.\": When they heard that Aaron had died, they said: \"The high-priest has died and their great Lookout has gone, and the pillar of cloud that waged war for them — this is the time to go and fight them.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: It was a great degradation for Israel to say (Devarim 1:22) \"Let us send out men before us and let them spy out the land for us.\" The L-rd said to them: If when you were in \"a land of desert and pit,\" I looked out the way for you, how much more so, when you are entering a good, broad land, a land flowing milk and honey!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:34) \"And the cloud of the L-rd was above them by day\": From here they said: There are seven \"clouds\": (Bamidbar 14:14) \"and in a pillar of cloud You go before them by day,\" (Shemot 14:19) \"and the pillar of cloud turned from before them,\" (Bamidbar, 14:14) \"and Your cloud stands over them,\" (Devarim 1:33) \"and in cloud by day,\" (Bamidbar 9:19) \"And when the cloud lingered over the mishkan,\" (Shemot 40:38) \"For the cloud of the L-rd was on the mishkan by day,\" (Bamidbar 10:34) \"And the cloud of the L-rd was above them by day.\" There were seven clouds — four on their four sides, one above, one below (to cushion their feet), and one before them, which lowered what was high and raised what was low, and killed the serpents and the scorpions, and swept and sprinkled before them. R. Yehudah says: There were thirteen (clouds) — two on each side, two above and two below, and one before them. R. Yoshiyah says: Four. Rebbi says: Two.",
            " \"And the cloud of the L-rd was above them by day when they set forth from the encampment\": Even over the lame and the blind and the zavim (those afflicted with a genital discharge) and the lepers.",
            "Variantly: \"And the cloud of the L-rd was above them by day\": Whence is it derived that if one of the Jews withdrew from under the wings of the cloud, it withdrew with him until he returned? From \"And the cloud of the L-rd was above them.\" Perhaps just as it protected them by day, so it protected them at night. (This is not so,) for it is written \"by day\" — It protected them by day and not at night. Granted, then, that the pillar of cloud did not protect them at night, but perhaps the pillar of fire provided light for them by day; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemot 40:38) \"and fire was on it by night\" — It gave light at night, but not in the daytime. Perhaps just as it gave light for Israel, so it gave light for the idolators. (This is not so,) for it is written (Shemot 40:38) \"and fire was on it by night in the sight of all of the house of Israel\" — It gave light for Israel, but not for the idolators. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Whence is it derived that all the forty years that Israel were in the desert they did not require a lamp, but even if one entered a room within a room, a kind of torch entered with him until he returned? From (Shemot 40:38) \"in the sight of all of the eyes of Israel in all of their travels\" — Even if one entered a room within a room, the pillar of fire would give light before him."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 10:35) \"And it was, when the ark traveled\": There are signs (inverted nuns) before (this verse) and after (the next verse). Rebbi says: Because it is a book in itself — whence they ruled: A (Torah) scroll which was erased, and there remained eighty-five letters, as in the section \"And it was, when the ark traveled\" (imparts tumah to the hands [a Rabbinical enactment, viz. Shabbath 14a]). R. Shimon says: There are signs before and after because this is not its place. What should have been written? (Bamidbar 10:33) \"And they traveled from the mountain of the L-rd, a journey of three days. (And the ark of the covenant of the L-rd preceded them a distance of three days\"). (Bamidbar 11:1) \"And the people were as seekers of a pretext.\" An analogy: Some men say to the king: Would you please accompany us to the governor of Acco? They arrive at Acco — he has gone to Tyre. They arrive at Tyre — he has gone to Tziddon. They arrive at Tziddon — he has gone to Antochia. They arrive at Antochia — some of them start complaining against the king for having put them to all of this trouble! It is the king who should complain, for having been put to all of this trouble for their sakes! Similarly, on that day the Shechinah traveled a three-days journey, so that they could (immediately) enter Eretz Yisrael — and they began to complain before Him for having been put to all of that trouble! It is He (if anyone) who should have complained! For it was for their sakes that the Shechinah was thus constrained!",
            " One verse states (Bamidbar 11:35) \"And Moses said: 'Stand, O L-rd (and let Your foes be scattered'\"), and another (Bamidbar 9:23) \"By word of the L-rd they encamped, and by word of the L-rd they traveled.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? An analogy: A king says to his servant: Would you please stop me (if I go too quickly). For I am on my way to give an inheritance to my son, (\"and I may 'run away' with myself!\") Variantly: A king goes on a journey and takes his lover along with him. When he travels, he says: I will not go further before my lover tells me to; and when he desires to camp, he says: I will not camp unless my lover tells me to. Thus is reconciled \"And Moses said, etc.\" and \"By word of the L-rd they encamped, and by the word of the L-rd they traveled.\"",
            "\"Stand, O L-rd, and let Your foes be scattered\": \"Your foes\": those who are massed to attack us. \"and let Your haters (those in pursuit) flee before You.\" They will flee, and we will not be destroyed by them. (\"before You\" [lit., \"before Your face\"]) When Your face is with us, we will not flee before them, and if not, we will fall before them. And thus is it written (Shemot 33:15) \"If Your 'face' does not go, do not bring us up from here,\" and (Ibid. 16) \"For how, otherwise, will it be known that I and Your people have found favor in Your eyes,\" and (Joshua 10:11) \"And it was, when they fled before Israel, they were on the descent of Beth Choron, when the L-rd cast upon them great stones, etc.\", and (Psalms 83:115) \"My G-d, make them like whirling chaff, like stubble before the wind, like a fire burning mountains.\"",
            " \"and let Your haters flee before You\": Now are there \"haters\" before Him who spoke and brought the world into being? The intent is, rather, that all who hate the righteous are, as it were, haters of the L-rd. Similarly, (Shemot 15:7) \"and in the greatness of Your grandeur you destroy those who rise against You.\" Now are there any who \"rise\" before the L-rd? The intent is, rather, that all who rise against the righteous are, as it were, \"rising\" against the L-rd. And, similarly (Psalms 74:23) \"Forget not the voice of Your adversaries, the ever rising roar of those who rise against You,\" and (Psalms 83:3) \"For Your foes are tumultuous; Your haters have raised their heads,\" and (Psalms 4) \"They have been subtle in counsel against Your people,\" and (Psalms 138:21-22) \"Will I not hate Your haters, O L-rd? Will I not battle with those who rise up against You? I have hated them to the heights of hatred. I have deemed them my (own) enemies.\" And thus is it written (Zechariah 2:12) \"Whoever touches you (Israel) touches the pupil of His eye\": It is not written \"the pupil of the eye,\" but \"the pupil of His eye\" — that of the L-rd, as it were, Scripture resorting to a euphemism (for \"the eye of the L-rd\"). Similarly, (Job 7:20) \"Why do You make me Your target for Yourself, and a burden to myself?\" — (\"myself\") a euphemism (for \"to You\"?) Similarly, (Ezekiel 8:17) \"and they thrust the branch to their nostrils\" — a euphemism for (\"My\"). Similarly, (Chabakkuk 1:12) \"Are You not of yore, O L-rd, my holy G-d, and we shall not die\" — a euphemism (for \"You\"). Similarly, (Psalms 106:20) \"They exchanged their glory for the image of a bull feeding on grass\" — a euphemism (for \"G-d\"). Similarly, (Bamidbar 11:15) \"And if You will do thus to me, kill me, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your eyes, and let me not witness my evil\" — a euphemism (for \"them\" and \"their,\" respectively). Similarly, (Ibid. 12:12) \"who comes out of his mother's womb, and half his flesh being consumed\" — a euphemism (for \"our\"). And if one helps the righteous, it is as if he is helping the L-rd, viz. (Judges 5:23) \"'Curse Meroz!' said the angel of the L-rd. 'Bitterly curse her dwellers. Because they do not come to the holy of the L-rd, to the help of the L-rd among the mighty.'\" R. Shimon b. Elazar says: There is nothing more \"beloved\" in a man's body than his eye. When a man is hit on his head, he closes only his eyes. And Israel is thus compared, viz. (Zechariah 2:12) \"Whoever touches you (Israel) touches the pupil of His eye.\" R. Yossi b. Elazar says: He (the \"toucher\") is regarded as one who sticks a finger into His eye and gouges it out. Pharaoh, who \"touched,\" what did I do to him? (Shemot 15:4) \"Pharaoh's chariots and his army He cast into the sea.\" Sisra, who \"touched,\" what did I do to him? (Judges 5:20) \"From heaven the stars fought. From their courses they fought against Sisra.\" Sancherev, who \"touched,\" what did I do to him? (II Kings 19:35) \"And an angel of the L-rd went out and smote in the camp of Ashur, etc.\" Nevuchadnezzar, who \"touched,\" what did I do to him? (Daniel 4:30) \"and he ate grass like cattle.\" Haman, who \"touched,\" what did I do to him? (Esther 8:7) \"and they hanged him on a tree.\" And thus you find that as long as Israel were subjugated in Egypt, the Shechinah was with them in their servitude, viz. (Shemot 22:10) \"And they saw the G-d of Israel, and under His feet, the likeness of a sapphire brick\" (viz. Ibid. 1:14) \"And thus is it written (Isaiah 63:9) \"In all of their afflictions, He was afflicted.\" This tells me only of communal afflictions. Whence do I derive (the same for) individual afflictions? From (Psalms 91:15) \"When he calls Me, I will answer him. With him will I be in affliction.\" And it is written (Bereshit 39:20-21) \"And Joseph's master took him in and the L-rd was with Joseph.\" And thus is it written (II Samuel 7:23) \"… before your people whom You redeemed from Egypt — a nation and its G-d\" (together with them). R. Akiva says: If it were not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say it — Israel said before the L-rd: \"You have redeemed Yourself!\" You find that whenever they were exiled, the Shechinah was exiled with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) \"Was I not exiled to your father's house when they were in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh?\" When they were exiled to Bavel, the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) \"For your sake I was sent to Bavel.\" When they were exiled to Edom, the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Ibid. 63:1) \"Who is this, coming from Edom, etc.?\" And when they return, the Shechinah will return with them, as it is written (Devarim 30:3) \"And the L-rd will return, etc.\" It is not written \"and the L-rd will return your captivity,\" but \"and the L-rd will return with your captivity.\" And it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) \"With Me, from Levanon, My bride, with Me from Levanon will you come.\"",
            " Rebbi says: One verse states (Bamidbar 9:23) \"By the word of the L-rd they encamped, and by the word of the L-rd they traveled,\" and here (10:35-36) it is written \"And Moses said: \"Stand, O L-rd … Rest, O -rd.\" How are these verses to be reconciled? Scripture is telling us that when Israel traveled (by word of the L-rd) the pillar of cloud was folded and standing, and it did not move until Moses said \"Stand, O L-rd.\" And when they rested (by word of the L-rd), the pillar of cloud was folded and standing, and it did not spread out (over the encampment) until Moses said \"Rest, O L-rd,\" so that there are satisfied both \"By word of the L-rd they encamped and by word of the L-rd they traveled,\" and \"Moses said: Stand, O L-rd … Rest, O L-rd.\" And this is the intent of \"by the mouth of the L-rd, by the hand of Moses.\" (Ibid. 36) \"And when it came to rest, he said, etc.\": Scripture (here) states that Moses said: (I will not allow the Shechinah to rest) until Israel travels in thousands and rests in ten thousands, until Israel becomes thousands of ten thousands, like the stars of heaven. \"And when it rested, he said\": Scripture (here) states that the Shechinah rests on high only on two thousands and two ten thousands, as it is written (Psalms 68:18) \"the chariots of G-d are two ten thousands, two thousands.\" And just as the Shechinah does not rest on high except on two thousands and two ten thousands, so, it does not rest below except on two thousands and two ten thousands."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:1) \"And the people were ['vayehi'] as seekers of a pretext\": \"vayehi\" connotes return to a previous condition, i.e., they were perverse to begin with, and they reverted to their original perversity. \"And the people\": \"the people\" connotes the wicked ones, as in (Shemot 17:4) \"What can I do to this people?\", (Bamidbar 14:4) \"How long will this people provoke Me?\" (Jeremiah 13:10) \"this evil people who refuse to hear My words.\" And when He calls them \"My people,\" this connotes the upright ones, as in (Shemot 7:16) \"Send My people and let them serve Me,\" (Michah 6:3) \"My people, what (wrong) did I do to you, and how did I tire you? Testify against Me!\", (Ibid. 5) \"My people, remember now, etc.\" And the people were kemithonenim\": \"mithonenim\" connotes \"grumblers,\" seekers of a pretest to abandon the L-rd, as in the instance of Yoram the son of Achav, viz. (II Kings 5:7) \"Know now and see that he seeks a pretext (mithaneh) against me,\" and in the instance of Samson, viz. (Judges 14:4) \"for he was seeking a pretext (toanah) against the Philistines.\" R. Eliezer says: \"kemithonenim\" connotes \"blows,\" as in (Proverbs 26:22) \"The words of the grumbler are like blows,\" and in (Devarim 1:23) \"And you 'grumbled' in your tents.\" What is \"blows\" (in our context)? They were as strikers of blows, but a \"knife\" descended from heaven and split their innards, viz. (Proverbs, Ibid.) \"and they descend to the recesses of the stomach.\" R. Yehudah says: \"kemithonenim\" connotes those who afflict themselves, as in (Devarim 26:19) \"I did not eat in my mourning (be'oni) of it.\" Rebbi says: \"kemithonenim ra [evil]\": \"evil\" (in this context) is idolatry, as in (Devarim 31:29) \"for you will do evil in the eyes of the L-rd.\" \"in the ears of the L-rd\": We are hereby taught that Israel deliberately intended to have Him hear (their words). R. Shimon says: An analogy: A man is cursing the king, when the king passes by. They tell him: Hush! the king might hear! And he says: Who told you that I don't want him to hear! So, (in this instance) Israel wanted the L-rd to hear. He heard and His wrath burned in them. \"and the fire of the L-rd burned in them\": Fire descended from heaven and \"rained blows\" upon them until they could not tell the difference between the living and the dead. But whom did the fire strike first? — \"and it (the fire) devoured 'biktzei' of the camp.\" Some say (this refers to) the proselytes, who were muktzim (\"cast off\") in the end (\"katzeh\") of the camp. R. Shimon b. Menassia says: \"and it devoured 'biktzei' of the camp\": in the ketzinim, (their officers), their great men, as in (Judges 11:11) \"and the people set him as a leader and a chief (katzin) over them.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:2) \"And the people cried out to Moses\": How would Moses help them? Should it not be \"And the people cried out to the L-rd\"? — R. Shimon says: An analogy: A king was angry with his son, and he went to the king's loved one and said to him: Please intercede for me with father. Thus, Israel went to him: Please intercede for us with the L-rd. I might think that Moses would demur; it is, therefore, written \"and Moses prayed to the L-rd.\" I might think that the L-rd would demur; it is, therefore, written \"and the fire sank\" — it sank in its place. If it returned to the heavens, they would revert to their wrong, and if it went to the side, it would raze that entire side, wherefore it sank in its place. (Ibid. 3) \"And he called the name of that place 'Taveirah'\" (\"conflagration\"). As one would say: Leave that fire burning in its place. Thus did Moses say to Israel: Repent and the fire will subside; if not, it is still (burning) in its place. \"for the fire of the L-rd burned in them\": It was called thus because of the event, and not because that was its name in the past. Similarly, (Shemot 17:7) \"And he called the name of the place Massah and Merivah.\" I might think that that was its name in the past; it is, therefore, written \"because of the quarrel (riv [as in \"Merivah\"]) of the children of Israel\" — it was thus called because of the event. Similarly, (Bamidbar 11:34) \"And he called the name of that place Kivroth Hata'avah.\" I might think that that was its name in the past; it is, therefore, written \"for there they buried (kavru) the people that lusted (hamitavim)\" — it was thus called because of the event. But you still do not know who were those who incited them to this transgression. — It is written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) \"And the asafsuf in its midst (lusted lust\"). These are the converts that were \"added on\" (hanosafim [as in \"asafsuf\"]) to them — how much more so the common Jews (i.e., the rabble). R. Shimon b. Menassia says: These (\"the asafsuf\") are the elders, viz. (Ibid. 11:16) \"Gather (asfah) unto me seventy men from the elders of Israel.\" If thus, the elders, how much more so, the commoners! Similarly, (Bereshit 6:2) \"And the sons of the judges saw the daughters of man, etc.\" What did they do? They would seize women from the marketplace and \"afflict\" them. If thus, the sons of the judges, how much more so the commoners? \"they lusted lust\": I might think that they lusted something they did not have; it is, therefore, written \"Who will feed us flesh,\" (which implies that they lusted something which they had.) \"and the children of Israel also wept again,\" which teaches us that the first ones (viz. Ibid. 2) were the children of Israel. \"And they said: 'Who will feed us flesh?'\" Now is it because they did not have flesh that they grumbled? Is it not written (Shemot 12:38) \"And also a mixed multitude went up with them, and flocks and herds, etc.\"? I might think that they had eaten them in the desert, but is it not written upon their entering the land (Bamidbar 32:1) \"And much livestock were possessed by the sons of Reuven and the sons of Gad, etc.\"? But (the truth is that) they were only seeking a pretext to abandon the L-rd."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:5) \"We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt, free\": Is it possible that the Egyptians gave them fish free? Is it not written (Shemot 5:18) \"And now, go and work, and straw will not be given you\": If they did not give them straw free, would they give them fish free? How, then, are we to understand \"free\"? \"Free\" of mitzvoth. R. Shimon says: The manna would change for them to any flavor they desired, except for (that of) these five things (Ibid \"cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic\") An analogy: A king hands his son over to a pedagogue and charges him: See to it that he does not eat or drink anything harmful. And the son grumbles at his father, saying: It is not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat! The sages say: The manna changed for Israel to any thing (i.e., any flavor) they desired, but they did not see it (the desired object) with their eyes. And this is the intent of (Ibid. 6) \"There is nothing. Only to the manna is our eyes.\" To our eyes, there is nothing — only manna in the morning, manna in the evening!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:6) \"And now, our souls are dry. There is nothing\": R. Shimon said: They said: It (the manna) will burst our bowels. Can a mortal ingest and not expel! They said to R. Shimon: And how do you explain (Devarim 23:14) \"And you shall have a spade along with your other implements\" (to cover your excrement)? He answered: What the Canaanite merchants sold them they expelled, but the manna, never. As it is written (Psalms 78:25) \"Man ate the bread of abirim\" — (bread) which was absorbed in the eivarim (the limbs). \"Only to the manna is our eyes. (7) The manna was (round) like coriander seed, and it looked like crystal.\": You think that he who said this (\"Only to the manna, etc.\") said that (\"The manna was round, etc.\"?) This is not so. Israel said \"Only to the manna is our eyes,\" and the L-rd \"pacified\" all future generations and said to them: Come and see what they are grumbling to Me about — \"The manna was like coriander seed — it looked like crystal!\" viz. (Bereshit 2:12) \"And the gold of that land is good. There is the crystal and the onyx stone.\" Similarly, (i.e., another instance of \"split referrent\") (Ibid. 38:25) \"And Judah recognized (them) and said: 'She is right. It is by me'\" (that she is with child). And Scripture (and not Judah) states that \"he did not live with her again.\" Similarly, (Devarim 25:18) \"and you (Israel) were faint and weary,\" \"and (he, Amalek) did not fear G-d.\" Similarly, (Judges 5:28) \"Why is his (Sisra's) chariot delayed in coming?\" — This was stated by Sisra's mother, (29) \"The wisest of her ladies answer her, etc.\" — This was said by his wife and her daughters-in-law. (Ibid.) \"She, too, returns her words to her\" — there was revealed to her what was said to Devorah by the Holy Spirit — Don't wait any longer for Sisra. (Ibid. 31) \"So will all of Your foes go lost, O L-rd.\" Similarly, (I Samuel 4:8) \"Woe to us! Who will save us from the hand of this mighty G-d\" — This was stated by the righteous (among them). But the wicked said: \"This is the G-d who smote the Egyptians with every plague in the desert.\" Their intent was: He had only ten plagues (in His arsenal) and He brought them all on the Egyptians — He has no plagues left. The L-rd responded: You say I have no plague left? I will bring upon you a plague the like of which the world has never seen. One of you will be sitting (and defecating) and a mouse will rise from the depths and will scoop out his innards and return to the depths! And thus is it written (Ibid. 5:6) \"And the hand of the L-rd was heavy against the Ashdodites … and He struck them with hemorrhoids.\" Similarly, (Jeremiah 26:16-25) \"Then the officers and all the people said to the Cohanim: … This man (Jeremiah) does not deserve to die … And there arose men of the elders of the land and they said to the entire assemblage of the people: Michah the Monashite prophesied … Did Chizkiyahu king of Judah put him to death? …\" Until here, the words of the righteous. But the wicked among them said: \"There was also a man who prophesied in the name of the L-rd, Uriah the son of Shemayahu … And King Yehoyakim heard … and the king wanted to put him to death…. And King Yehoyakim sent men to Egypt … and they took Uriah out of Egypt …\" They said: Just as Uriah was killed, so Jeremiah must be killed. \"But Achiram son of Shafan protected Jeremiah not to hand him over to the people to be put to death.\" Similarly, (Ruth 2:13) \"As the L-rd lives, lie (here) until the morning.\" Because the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) sat and aggrieved him (Boaz) the whole night, saying: You are single and need a wife, and she (Ruth) is single and needs a husband, and you know that a woman is acquired (as a wife) by intercourse — Arise and live with her and let her be your wife — he swore to his yetzer hara \"As the L-rd lives,\" I will not touch her. And to the woman he said: \"Lie (here) until the morning.\" Here, too, \"Only to the manna is our eyes.\" Do you think that he who said this said that (\"The manna was like coriander seed, etc.\")? (No!) Israel said \"Only to the manna is our eyes!\" and the L-rd \"pacified\" and said to them: Come and see about what they are railing against Me: \"The manna was like coriander seed and it looked like crystal,\" viz. (Bereshit 2:12) \"The gold of that land is good. There is crystal and the shoham stone.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:8) \"The people would stroll out and gather it\": I might think that they railed against Him because it was difficult to gather; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:4) \"And the people will go out and gather it.\" One would sit at the door of his house and gather his share and the share of his household, and when the sun came out, it melted. \"and they would grind it in a mill\": Now (did we not learn that) it never \"descended\" to a mill? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is ground in a mill. \"or beat it in a mortar\": Now (did we not learn that) it was never beaten in a mortar? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is beaten in a mortar. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone. Whence is it derived that all the forty years that Israel was in the desert a woman had no need of spices, but was \"decorated\" (i.e., perfumed) by the manna? From \"or\" beat it.\" \"or cook it in a pot\": Now (did we not learn that) it never \"descended\" to a pot? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is cooked in a pot. \"and they made cakes of it\": Now (did we not learn that) it never \"descended\" to an oven? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is baked in an oven. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the things gathered in a field? From \"and they would gather it.\" And it is written (Devarim 2:7) \"These forty years the L-rd has been with you. You have lacked nothing.\" As if a man would say I want to eat grapes, and they were given to him; I want to eat figs, and they were given to him. \"and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil\": \"leshad\": an acronymic for three words: \"layish\" (dough), \"shemen\" (oil), and \"dvash\" (honey). As dough kneaded with oil and honey, such was the inherent taste of the manna, and thus (i.e., with intent for this taste) did the upright of Israel eat it. Variantly: \"and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil\": Just as the breast (shad) is \"primary\" to an infant, and everything else, secondary. Variantly: Just as the breast, if an infant sucks it the whole day, it does not harm it, so, the manna; if Israel ate it a whole day, it would not harm them. Variantly: Just as the breast, which produces one kind, which changes into many kinds, so, the (taste of the) manna changed for Israel into any taste that they desired, except for that of the five kinds (viz. Ibid. 5). An analogy: (A doctor) tells a (nursing) woman: Do not eat garlic and onion for the sake of the infant. Variantly: Just as the breast, an infant suffers when it withdraws from it, so, Israel suffered when they withdrew from the manna, viz. (Joshua 5:12) \"And the manna ceased the following day, when they ate from the grain of the land.\" An analogy: A man is asked: Why are you eating barley bread? He answers: Because I don't have wheat bread. Why are you eating carobs? Because I don't have figs. Similarly, if Israel had that handful (of manna) that they took on the day of Moses' death, from which they ate all forty days, they would not desire to eat of the grain of the land of Canaan. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 9) \"And when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it.\": We are hereby taught that it descended upon the thresholds and the doorposts. I might think that the manna was eaten sullied; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:14) \"and, behold, on the face of the desert it was spread thin.\" It (the dew) descended as a kind of hoarfrost and became a kind of layer upon the ground on which the manna descended. And from it Israel took and ate. This accounts for the lower level; but couldn't the reptiles and the flies infest it from above? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"and the dew layer ascended,\" whence it follows that it was enclosed in a kind of casing. And they would recite the Shema and pray; and one would go out to the entrance of his house and take his share and that of his household, after which the sun would come out and melt it. Similarly, R. Shimon says: Why didn't the manna descend once a year? So that their hearts turn to their Father in heaven (for their food). An analogy: A king decreed that his son be fed once a year — and he visited his father only on the day of his stipend! Once he decreed that he be fed every day — and he visited him every day. So with Israel. If a man had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and worry, thinking: If the manna does not fall tomorrow, we will all die of hunger! — So that they all turned their hearts to their Father in heaven. R. Dostai b. R. Yannai said: If so, the son will say: Even if I visit my father only for the sake of my stipend it is sufficient for me! So that the visit becomes entirely opportunistic. Rather, (the manna fell every day) so that it could be eaten while it was still warm. Variantly: (It did not fall once for a long period of time) so that it would not be a burden on the road. Similarly, R. Dostai b. R. Yannai says: Why did the L-rd not create hot springs in Jerusalem as He did in Tiberias? So that one not say to his friend: Let us go up to the hot springs of Jerusalem. If we go up for only one dousing, it will be sufficient for us. So that the ascent becomes entirely opportunistic."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:10) \"And Moses heard the people weeping by its families\": R. Nehorai was wont to say: From here we derive that Israel were aggrieved when Moses charged them to abstain from illicit relations. For (before this) a man would marry his sister or his father's sister or his mother's sister. \"weeping by its families\": Because their hearts swelled in (this) sin many families joined together and he proclaimed this in public. \"each at the door of his tent\": We are hereby apprised that they waited for Moses until he left the door of the house of study, and they sat and grumbled. \"And the L-rd was extremely wroth, and in the eyes of Moses it was evil. (11) \"And Moses said to the L-rd, etc.\" Here, the Holy One Blessed be He attenuates (His manifestation of wrath) and Moses exacerbates, whereas in the instance of the golden calf, the Holy One Blessed be He exacerbates and Moses attenuates."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:11) \"And Moses said to the L-rd: Why have You done evil to Your servant … (12) \"Did I conceive all this people? Did I beget them, etc.?\" When did He speak thus to him? When He said to him (Shemot 32:34) \"Go, now, lead the people where I told you\" — the thing depends upon you. And (Ibid. 6:13) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He charged them to the children of Israel … to deliver the children of Israel from the land of Egypt.\" He said to them: Know that they are recalcitrant and importunate — on the understanding that they will curse you and stone you! \"Whence am I to take flesh (to give to all this people\") — Are they only one or two (recalcitrants, etc.) that I can bear them? (The majority are of that kind!) (11:14) \"I shall not be able to bear alone all this people.\" (15) \"And if thus You will do to them, kill me, I pray You\": The Holy One Blessed be He had shown Moses the calamity that He was going to bring upon them. R. Shimon was wont to say: An analogy: One going out to be executed together with his sons says to the executioner: Kill me before you kill my sons — not as in the instance of Tzidkiyahu (Jeremiah 52:10-11) \"And the king of Bavel slaughtered the sons of Tzidkiyahu before his eyes … and the eyes of Tzidkiyahu he blinded. Thus, Moses said before the L-rd: \"And if thus You will do to them, kill me, I pray you.\" I would rather be killed first and not see the calamity that is to be brought upon them."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:16) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Gather unto Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, etc.\": Why (is this mentioned here)? Because Moses had said \"I cannot bear alone,\" the L-rd responded: What you have requested, I have granted. \"Gather unto Me\": that the Sanhedrin be in My name. Wherever \"unto Me\" is written, the understanding is \"forever.\" The Cohanim — (Shemot 28:41) \"that they minister unto Me.\" The Levites — (Bamidbar 8:14) \"and the Levites shall be unto Me.\" Israel — (Vayikra 25:35) \"For unto Me are the children of Israel servants.\" The first-born — (Bamidbar 8:17) \"For unto Me are all the first-born of the children of Israel.\" The sanctuary — (Shemot 25:8) \"And let them make unto Me a sanctuary.\" The altar — (Ibid. 20:24) \"An altar of earth shall you make unto Me.\" The oil of anointment — (Ibid. 30:31) \"Holy oil of anointment shall this be unto Me.\" The kings — (I Samuel 16:1) \"For I have seen among his sons a king unto Me.\" The offerings — (Bamidbar 28:2) \"to sacrifice unto Me in its appointed time.\" Unto Me, then, always connotes \"forever.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) \"seventy men\": There must be seventy in a Sanhedrin. \"seventy men\": They must be wise, strong, senior, and well-versed in the magic arts. \"from the elders of Israel\": Not in (only) one or two places does the L-rd accord honor to the elders, but in every place that you find, He does so, viz. (Shemot 3:16) \"Go and assemble the elders of Israel, etc.\", (Ibid. 24:1) \"And to Moses He said: Ascend to the L-rd, you and Aaron and Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel,\" (Ibid. 14) \"And to the elders He said: Wait for us here until we return to you,\" (Vayikra 9:1) \"And it was on the eighth day that Moses called to Aaron and to his sons and to the elders of Israel\" — Wherever you find elders, you find the L-rd according honor to the elders. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Whence do you derive that it will also be thus in time to come? From (Isaiah 24:23) \"And the moon will be shamed and the sun abashed. For the L-rd of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and He will accord His elders honor.\" Now does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being is destined to accord honor to the elders, how much more so should creatures of flesh and blood honor them! And thus do you find that the L-rd is aggrieved over (the suffering of) one elder over and against all of Israel, viz. (Ibid. 47:6) \"I have fumed against My people; I have profaned My heritage, etc.\" The L-rd, as it were, \"pardons\" everything, but (Ibid.) \"You have weighed your yoke exceedingly upon the elder\" (i.e., this cannot be pardoned). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"whom you know to be the elders of the people\": You must know that they are \"select\" men. \"that they are the elders of the people\": We are hereby taught that one is not elected to sit in council until people tend to speak in praise of him, viz.: \"That man is upright and pious and wise and fit to sit in council.\" \"and its officers\": those of whom it is written (Shemot 5:19) \"And the officers of the children of Israel saw them in their plight.\" Since they saw themselves as involved in their plight, let them come and share in their welfare. (Devarim, Ibid.) \"And you shall take them to the tent of meeting\": He said to them. \"Take them\" with words first, with words of praise, viz.: How fortunate you are to have been selected (for this honor) — and then \"hard\" words: Know that they are importunate and recalcitrant. Take them on this condition, that they will curse you and stone you. And stipulate the same to them. \"And have them stand there with you\": Take them in with you to the tent of meeting, and let all of Israel deport themselves to them with awe and fear and honor, as they do with you. And let them say: How beloved are these, who have entered with Moses to hear the word of the Holy One Blessed be He!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:17) \"And I will go down\" (veyaradeti): This is one of the ten \"yeridoth\" written in the Torah. \"and I will speak with you\": \"with you,\" but not with them. \"And I shall increase from the spirit which is upon you, and I will place it upon them.\": What was Moses like at that time? Like a lamp placed upon a menorah, from which many lamps are lighted without the first losing any of its light. So, the wisdom of Moses was in no way diminished thereby. \"and they will bear with you\": What is the intent of this? Because Moses had said (Devarim 1:12) \"How can I bear alone your contentiousness, your heresy, and your caviling,\" he was told \"and they will bear with you the burden of the people, and you will not bear it alone.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:18) \"And to the people you shall say: Hithkadshu for tomorrow\": (The connotation of) \"Hithkadshu\" is: Prepare yourselves for calamity, as in (Jeremiah 12:3) \"Hakdishem for the day of killing,\" (Ibid. 22:7) \"Vekidashti against your destroyers.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) \"Until a month of days\": This is stated of the mediocre. They would languish in their beds for thirty days until their souls expired. Of the wicked it is written (Ibid. 33) \"The flesh was yet between their teeth\" — As soon as they put it between their teeth, their souls would expire. (Ibid. 20) \"and it will be loathsome to you\": You will repel it more than you courted it. \"for you have despised the L-rd who is in your midst.\": The L-rd said to them: What caused you to say such things? My having reposed My shechinah among you. For if I had removed My shechinah from you, you would not have (swelled with pride to) utter such things."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:21) \"And Moses said: Six hundred thousand foot, etc.\": R. Shimon b. Yochai said: R. Akiva expounded this in one way, and I, in two ways, and my words seem more cogent. R. Akiva expounds it plainly, viz. (Ibid. 22) \"If flocks and herds are slaughtered for them will it be sufficient for them?\" Even if you give them all the flocks and herds (in the world), will it be sufficient for them? And I understand it as follows: \"If flocks and herds are slaughtered for them will it be sufficient for them?\" Even if you give them all the flocks and herds in the world, they would grumble. For is it because they have no meat that they are grumbling? Is it not written of the exodus from Egypt (Shemot 12:38) \"And also a great mixture (of proselytes) went up with them, and flocks and herds, etc.\"? I might think they ate them in the desert. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 32:1) \"And the sons of Reuven and the sons of Gad had much cattle, etc.\" It is only that they were looking for a pretext to abandon the L-rd. (Ibid. 11:22) \"If all the fish of the sea are gathered for them\"? Even if you gave them all the fish in the sea they would grumble. For is it because they have no fish that they are grumbling? Did not the well of Miriam accompany them in the desert and supply them with more than their fill of fish? It is only that they were looking for a pretext to abandon the L-rd. Variantly: Because He showed Moses the chain of calamities destined to befall them, Moses said before the L-rd: My L-rd, is it right that you give them and kill them? Does one tell an ass: Take a kor of wheat and we will cut off your head? Does one tell a man: Take a loaf and descend to Sheol? He responded: And if not, (i.e., if I do not give them what they ask for), what will be said? (Ibid. 23) \"Will the hand of the L-rd be found wanting?\" Moses: Let me go and attempt to conciliate them. The L-rd: (Ibid.) \"You will see whether My word (that they will not heed you) will befall you or not.\" While you are here, I am telling you that they will not heed you. (Ibid. 24) \"And Moses went out and told the people the words of the L-rd,\" viz.: When Moses went to them he said to them: \"Will the hand of the L-rd be found wanting?\" (They responded, Psalms 78:20) \"True, He struck a rock and water flowed and streams flooded forth, but can He also give bread? Can He supply food for His people?\" They said: This (i.e., your attempt to conciliate us) is a \"compromise.\" He lacks the strength to grant us what we ask.",
            " (Ibid. 26) \"And there remained two men in the camp\": Some say: They (i.e., their ballots) remained in the ballot box. When the Holy One Blessed be He told Moses to select seventy elders, Moses asked himself: What am I to do? I must select six from each (of the tribes) and five from two tribes. Which tribe will consent to only five? Moses did as follows: He took seventy ballots and wrote on them \"elder,\" and two blank ballots and mixed them (with the others) in the ballot box, and he said to them: Come and take your ballots. Whoever came up with a ballot marked \"zaken,\" was told by Moses: \"The L-rd has already selected you,\" and whoever came up with a blank ballot was told by Moses: It is the will of Heaven — what can I do? Similarly, (Bamidbar 3:96) \"And (for) the redemption (money) of the two hundred and seventy-three of the first-born of the children of Israel over and above the (number of the) Levites, etc.\" Moses said what am I to do now? Each one (of the Israelite first-born) will say: A Levite has redeemed me! Moses did as follows: He took (22,000) ballots and wrote upon them \"Levite,\" and (273) ballots and wrote upon them \"five shekels,\" placed them in a ballot box and said to them: Come and take your ballots. Whoever came up with a ballot marked \"Levite\" was told by Moses: \"You have already been redeemed,\" and whoever came up with a ballot marked \"five shekalim\" was told by Moses: \"Go and give your redemption money (to the Cohanim). R. Shimon says (on Bamidbar 11:26): \"They (Eldad and Medad) remained in the camp, for when they saw Moses selecting elders, they said: We are not deserving of this honor, saying which, they went and hid themselves — whereupon the L-rd said to them: You lowered yourselves; I will exalt you above all the others: Of the seventy elders it is written (Ibid. 25) \"And they prophesied — but (after that day), they prophesied no more,\" whereas of Eldad and Medad it is written (Ibid. 27) \"They are prophesying in the camp\" — until the day of their death. And what were they saying? \"Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel to Eretz Yisrael.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:27) \"And the youth ran and he told Moses\": Some say that this is Joshua, as in (Shemot 33:11) \"And his (Moses') attendant, Joshua the son of Nun, a youth.\" R. Shimon says: It is written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 28) \"And Joshua the son of Nun the servant of Moses from his youth responded\": The first one, then, (i.e., \"the youth\") is not Joshua. (Ibid.) \"My lord, Moses, kela'em\": He said: My master, end them from the world, men who utter this evil report (that Moses will die). Rebbi says: (He said) Confine them in chains and collars, as in (Jeremiah 37:18) \"… that you have put me into the prison house\" (\"beth hakeleh\"). (Ibid. 29) \"And Moses said to him: Are you zealous for my sake?\" He said to him: Joshua, am I zealous for your sake? Would that you were a prophet like me (i.e., that your prophecy be directly from the L-rd), and that all of Israel be like you (in that regard) — (Ibid.) \"Would that all the L-rd's people were prophets (by direct inspiration, and not by [indirect] \"increase of spirit,\" viz. Ibid. 25). (Ibid. 30) \"And Moses retired into (his tent in) the camp, he and the elders of Israel.\" We are hereby taught that He did not bring the calamity upon them until there entered (his tent) all of the righteous in the camp."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:31) \"And a wind went forth from the L-rd and blew in (vayagaz) quail from the sea\": We are hereby taught that it (the quail flock) \"blossomed\" like \"puffs\" of wool (gazim). \"and it spread over the camp\": Some say that it killed in its descent as it did in being eaten. \"about a day's journey on one side\": towards the north. \"and a day's journey on the other side\": towards the south. R. Shimon says: \"about a day's journey here\": from above; \"and a day's journey there\": from below. \"and about two cubits above the face of the earth\": It hovered above two cubits over the face of the earth, so that they could be easily gathered in."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 11:32) \"And the people rose all that day … hamamit\": Read it not \"hamamit\" (\"he that gathered least\"), but \"hamemuat\" (the \"least\" among them, i.e., the indolent and the lame), gathered ten kor.\" (Ibid.) \"Vayishtechu lahem shatoach\": R. Yehudah says: Do not read it thus (\"vayishtechu\"), but \"vayishchatu\"(\"and they slaughtered\"): We are hereby taught that what descended for them required shechitah (ritual slaughter). Rebbi says: This (derivation) is not needed, for it is already written (Psalms 78:27) \"And he rained down upon them meat like dust and winged birds like the sand of seas.\" What, then, is the intent of \"Vayishchetu lahem shatoach\"? That it came down in layers (mashtichim). I might think that just as they gathered much, so, they ate much of it; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 11:33) \"The flesh was yet between their teeth.\" He (the eater) did not finish biting it before his soul left him, as it is written (Psalms, Ibid. 31) \"They had not yet been estranged from their craving; their food was still in their mouth, when the wrath of G-d rose against them and He smote their fattest.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And the wrath of the L-rd burned against the people, and the L-rd smote the people with a very great plague.\" We are hereby apprised that the L-rd sent against them a sore plague, the like of which had not been seen since the day they left Egypt.\" (Ibid. 34) \"And he called the name of that place 'Kivroth Hata'avah' (\"the graves of the lust\"). I might think that this is its name of yore; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"for there they buried the people that lusted.\" It was thus called because of the event. (Ibid. 35) \"From Kivroth Hata'avah the people traveled to Chatzeiroth, and they abode in Chatzeiroth\": Now were there two Chatzeiroth, one from which they traveled and one in which they camped? But (the intent is) once Israel began to travel, they did not continue before they heard that Miriam became leprous and they turned back and camped behind them — wherefore, (Ibid. 12:16) \"And afterwards the people traveled from Chatzeiroth\" — \"and they abode in Chatzeiroth.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:1) \"And Miriam and Aaron spoke (vatedaber) against Moses\": \"dibbur\" in all places connotes \"harsh\" speech, as in (Bereshit 42:30) \"The man, the lord of the land, spoke (\"dibber\") roughly to us,\" (Bamidbar 21:5) \"and the people spoke (\"vayedaber\") against G-d and against Moses.\" And \"amirah\" in all places connotes imploration as in (Bereshit 19:7) \"And he said (vayomer): Do not, I pray you, my brothers, do ill,\" (Bamidbar 12:6) \"And He said (vayomer): Hear, I pray you, My words.\" \"And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses\": We are hereby apprised that both spoke against him, but that Miriam spoke first. This was not her practice, but the occasion demanded it. Similarly (Jeremiah 36;6) \"And you (Baruch) shall go and read from the scroll, on which you have written from my (Jeremiah's) mouth, the word of the L-rd in the ears of the people\" — not that it was Baruch's practice to speak before Jeremiah, but the occasion demanded it. \"and Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses\": How did Miriam know that Moses had ceased from marital relations (with his wife Tzipporah)? Seeing that Tzipporah did not adorn herself as other (married) women did, she asked her for the cause and was told: \"Your brother is not 'particular' about this thing\" (intercourse, [being constantly \"on call\" for the word of G-d]). Thus Miriam learned of the matter. She apprised Aaron of it and they both spoke of it (as being a troublesome precedent for others.) Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Miriam, whose intent was not to berate her brother, but to praise him, and not to diminish propagation (in Israel), but to increase it, and who spoke thus privately — If she was thus punished, then one who intends to speak against his brother, in defamation and not in praise, and to diminish propagation and not to increase it, and in public — how much more so (is he to be punished!) Similarly, a fortiori from the instance of Uzziah (viz. II Chronicles 16-19) If King Uzziah, whose intent (in offering the incense) was not self-aggrandizement or personal honor but the glory of his Master, was thus punished, how much more so one who intends the opposite! (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"… Because of the Cushite woman\": Scripture hereby apprises us that whoever beheld her attested to her beauty. And thus is it written (Bereshit 11:29) \"… the father of Milkah and the father of Yiskah\": Yiskah is Sarah: Why was she called \"Yiskah\"? For all gazed upon (\"sochim\") her beauty, as it is written (Ibid. 12:15) \"And Pharaoh's officers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh.\" R. Eliezer the son of R. Yossi Haglili said: \"Tzipporah\" (Moses' wife) — Why was she called \"Tzipporah\"? \"Tzfu ur'uh\" (\"Look and see\") how beautiful this woman is! \"the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman\": Now was she an Ethiopian? Wasn't she a Midianite, viz. (Shemot 2:16) \"And the priest of Midian had seven daughters, etc.\" What is the intent of \"Cushite\"? Just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so Tzipporah was exceptional in her beauty — more so than all the women. Similarly, (Psalms 7:1) \"A Shiggayon of David, which he sang to the L-rd concerning Cush (Saul), a Benjaminite.\" Now was he a Cushite? (The intent is:) Just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so Saul was exceptional in his appearance, as it is written of him (I Samuel 9:2) \"… from his shoulder and upwards, taller than all of the people.\" Similarly, (Amos 9:7) \"Are you not like Cushites to Me, O children of Israel?\" Now were they Cushites? (The intent is:) Just as a Chushite is exceptional in his skin, so, is an Israelite exceptional in mitzvoth. Similarly, (Jeremiah 32:7) \"And Eved-melech the Cushite heard\": Now was he a Cushite? Was he not Baruch? But, just as a Cushite is exceptional in his skin, so, was Baruch ben Neriah exceptional in his deeds, more so than any of the others in the king's palace. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"for he had taken a Cushite woman\": Why is this written? Is it not written (immediately before) \"about the Cushite woman that he had taken\"? — There are those who are beautiful in appearance, but not in deed; in deed, but not in appearance, viz. (Proverbs 11:22) \"Like a golden ring in the snout of a pig is a beautiful woman lacking in sense. Tzipporah was beautiful in both — wherefore it is written \"about the Cushite woman that he had taken, for he had taken a Cushite woman.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:2) \"And they said: Is it only with Moses that the L-rd has spoken?\" Did He not also speak with our forefathers? And they did not separate from their wives! \"Has He not spoken also with us?\": And we have not separated from our spouses! \"And the L-rd heard\": We are hereby apprised that no one else was there, but they spoke thus between themselves. R. Nathan says: They also spoke thus to Moses' face, it being written \"And the L-rd heard and the man Moses\" — but Moses suppressed it."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:3) \"And the man Moses was extremely humble\": \"humble\" in his mind (i.e., complaisant). You say humble in his mind, but perhaps (the meaning is) \"humble\" in his wealth; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemot 11:3) \"The man Moses, also, was very great\" (in context, in wealth). We find that the second tablets made by Moses were of sapphire, it being written (Devarim 10:1) \"Carve out for yourself ([the fragments of the first tablets were vouchsafed to Moses]) two tablets of stone like the first.\" Just as the first were of sapphire, so, these. And whence is it derived that the first were of sapphire? From (Shemot 32:16) \"And the (first) tablets were the work of G-d,\" and (Ibid. 24:10) \"… and under His feet, as the work of a pavement of sapphire.\" \"work\" is likened to \"work.\" Just as \"work\" there (24:10) is of sapphire, so, \"work\" here (32:16). \"more\" (humble) than any man on the face of the earth\": but not (more humble) than the forefathers. R. Yossi says: Even (more humble) than the forefathers. And what is the intent of than any man on the face of the earth\"? — but not (more humble) than the angels."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) \"And the L-rd said suddenly\": R. Shimon b. Menassia said: Moses was frightened by \"suddenly\" (viz. [Shemot 3:6]), and (here) G-d spoke \"suddenly.\" \"The three of you go out to the tent of meeting!\": We are hereby apprised that the three of them were called by a single utterance, something which (within the framework of nature) the mouth is not capable of uttering nor the ear of hearing. And thus is it written (Shemot 20:1) \"And the L-rd spoke all of these things, saying\" — (Psalms 62:12) \"One (thing) has G-d spoken; two (things) have I heard,\" (Jeremiah 23:29) \"Behold, My word is like fire, declares the L-rd, (and like a hammer that shatters rock.\") (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And the L-rd went down in a pillar of cloud\": not as the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood: When he goes out to war, he goes out with many men, and when he goes out to peace, he goes out with only few. But the Holy One Blessed be He, when He goes out to war, only He goes out, as it is written (Shemot 18:3) \"The L-rd is a man of war\"; and when He comes in peace, He comes with thousands and ten thousands, viz. (Psalms 68:18) \"G-d's chariots are myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands.\" (And here He comes to make peace, accompanied by \"a pillar of cloud.\") (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And He called Aaron and Miriam, and the two of them came forth.\" Scripture here comes to teach us proper conduct — that when one wishes to speak to someone not in the presence of another, he should not ask the other to leave, but should draw near to him the one he wishes to speak to and talk to him. And why did He not call Moses with them? So that Israel not say that Moses, too, was the object of the L-rd's anger. Variantly: So that Moses not hear the (L-rd's) criticism of Aaron. Variantly: A man (Moses, in this instance) is not to be praised to his face. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: We find that part of a man's praise is stated to his face. For thus do we find with Noach, (the L-rd saying to him, Bereshit 7:1) \"For you have I found to be righteous before Me in this generation,\" whereas not to his face He says (Ibid. 6:9) \"These are the progeny of Noach: Noach was a completely righteous man in his generations.\" R. Elazar the son of R. Yossi Haglili says: We find that one mentions (only) part of the praise of Him who spoke and brought the world into being \"to His face,\" as it is written (Psalms 66:3) \"Say to G-d: How awesome are Your deeds!\" How much more so is this true (that only partial praise is thus mentioned) with flesh and blood."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:6) \"And He said: Hear, I pray you (\"na\"), My words\": \"Na\" is a term of imploration. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being speaks (thus) with the terrestrial creatures, how much more so flesh and blood (speaking to one another)! R. Shimon b. Yochai says: What is the intent of \"Hear, I pray you, My words\"? They wished to enter into the words of the L-rd, whereupon He asked them to wait until He had finished. How much more so should one not enter into the words of his neighbor, (who may thereby lose his \"train of thought.\") (Ibid.) \"If there be prophets (among you), 'the L-rd' (i.e., the immanence of My name) I invest him with in a vision; in a dream I speak to him.\" — But perhaps, just as I speak with the prophets in a dream and a vision, so I speak with Moses. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 7) \"Not so, My servant Moses. In all of My household, he (alone) is to be trusted\": aside from the ministering angels. R. Yossi says: even more than the ministering angels. (Ibid. 8) \"Mouth to mouth I spoke to him\": Mouth to mouth I told him to separate from his wife. (Ibid.) \"and in (clear) revelation\": This refers to the revelation of His words. You say: the revelation of his words; but perhaps (it refers to) the revelation of the Shechinah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemot 33:20) \"You shall not be able to see My face, for no man can see My face and live.\" R. Akiva says: \"no man\" — literally. \"and live\" (i.e., \"and the live ones\"): This refers to the ministering angels, who live forever (i.e., They, too, cannot see His face.) R. Shimon says: I do not rule out the words of my master; I add to them, viz.: \"and live\": Even the holy creatures, who bear the throne (of glory), do not see the glory. R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says: Not only do they not see it, they do not even know where it is, as it is written (Ezekiel 2:12) \"Then a spirit lifted me and I heard behind me a sound of great tumult. Blessed is the glory of the L-rd from His place\" (wherever it may be). R. Dossa says: \"For a man will not see Me vachai\": \"When he lives\" (\"vachai\") he cannot see Me, but he sees Me when he dies. And thus is it written (Psalms 22:20) \"Before Him shall bow down all who go down to dust, whose spirit does not live.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and not in riddles\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ezekiel 17:2) \"Son of man, propound a riddle,\" then just as I speak to the prophets in riddles, I (sometimes) speak to Moses in riddles; it is, therefore, written \"and not in riddles.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and the configuration of the L-rd does he behold.\" This is a vision of His \"back.\" You say it is a vision of His back, but perhaps it is a vision of His \"face.\" It is, therefore, written (Shemot 33:23) \"And I will remove My hand and you will see My back, but My face will not be seen.\" Moses sought to understand the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He — whereupon He said to him: \"and you will see My back, etc.\": My ways in the world to come, I will reveal to you; but, as to My ways in this world — \"You shall not be able to see My face,\" as it is written (Ezekiel 2:10) \"And He spread it (the scroll in the \"hand\" of G-d) before me, and it was written face and back.\" Now don't even the light-minded and commoners do this, writing face and back? Why mention it then? (The intent is:) \"face\" — (what transpires) in this world; \"back\" — (what transpires) in the world to come. \"face\" — the serenity of the righteous and the affliction of the wicked in this world; \"back\" — the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked in the world to come. (Ezekiel, Ibid.) \"and written upon it were \"kinnim, hegeh, and hi\": \"kinnim\" — the afflictions of the righteous in this world, viz. (Ibid. 32:16) \"This is a kinah (a dirge) and intone it\"; \"hegeh\" — the reward of the righteous in the world to come, viz. (Psalms 92:4) \"(Rejoice) on an assor (a ten-stringed instrument), on a psaltery, on higayon (like 'hegeh') and harp\"; \"and hi\" — the punishment of the wicked in the world to come, viz. (Ezekiel 7:26) \"hoveh (like 'hi') upon hoveh shall come.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And why did you not fear to speak against My servant, against Moses\": Let it not be written \"against My servant.\" (The intent is) that in speaking against Moses, it is as if You have spoken against Me. (for he is \"My servant\"). An analogy: A king had a governor in a province, and the people speak against him. The king says to them: You have not spoken against My servant, but against Me! And if you say (that you are not speaking against Me), but that I do not know his (evil) ways, this (i.e., to say that I am ignorant of his ways) is even worse than your first (offense)!"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:9) \"And the wrath of the L-rd burned in them, and He departed\": After He apprised them of their offense, He decreed ostracism upon them. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If He who spoke and brought the world into being did not vent His wrath upon flesh and blood until He apprised them of their offense, how much more so should flesh and blood not vent his anger upon his neighbor until he apprises him of his offense! R. Nathan says: He apprised them of their offense and then decreed ostracism upon them so that they not say as Iyyov did (Iyyov 10:2) \"Apprise me of what You accuse me!\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:10) \"And the cloud departed from above the tent\": An analogy: A king says to a pedagogue: \"Chastise my son — but not until I leave!\" For a father is mercifully inclined to his son. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is mercifully inclined to the righteous in the time of His wrath, how much more so in the time of His (good) will! As it is written (Isaiah 49:8) \"In a time of (good) will I (most certainly) will answer you!\" (Ibid.) \"And, behold, (after the cloud had departed), Miriam was as leprous as snow\": We are hereby taught that she was stricken with intense (i.e., highly visible) leprosy, and that she was fair-skinned (for which reason it looked like snow). And thus is it written (Shemot 4:6) \"And the L-rd said further to him (Moses): Place now your hand into your bosom … and, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.\" (Ibid.) \"And Aaron 'turned'\": He was \"turned\" from his leprosy. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who says that Aaron was stricken (with leprosy) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him (by not mentioning it explicitly in the verse) and you would reveal it! He who says that Tzelafchad was the mekoshesh (\"the wood gatherer\" [viz. Bamidbar 15:32]) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him and you would reveal it! And he who says that the ban was placed on Akavya b. Mehalalel (viz. Berachoth 19a) is destined to pay for it. \"And Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous\": Scripture hereby apprises us that whenever he looked at her she became leprous. (Ibid. 11) \"And Aaron said to Moses: Pray, my lord, do not impute transgression to us in that we have been foolish and have sinned.\": He said to him: If we have been willful (in our sin), forgive us, as if we were unwitting. (Ibid. 12) \"Let her not be as a dead one\": Just as a dead body imparts tumah in a tent, so, a leper imparts tumah by entrance (into a house). Aaron hereby said: Our sister loses on all accounts: I (being her kin) cannot quarantine her nor declare her tamei nor declare her clean. In passing we learn that Aaron expounds that one (a Cohein) does not inspect the plague-spots of his kin. \"who leaving his mother's womb\": He should have said \"who leaving our mother's womb,\" but Scripture here is being euphemistic. \"and half his flesh has been consumed\": He should have said \"and half our flesh,\" as in (Bereshit 37:27) \"for he is our brother, our flesh,\" but Scripture here is being euphemistic. (Ibid. 13) \"And Moses cried out to the L-rd, saying: 'Lord, I pray You; heal her, I pray You.'\": Scripture hereby teaches us proper conduct — that one's requests should be prefaced by two or three words, of imploration. And what is the intent of \"saying\"? Moses said: Answer me whether You will heal her or not — and the Holy One Blessed be He answered him, viz. (14) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc.\" R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses requested (to be answered by the Holy One Blessed be He), and he was answered. Similarly, (Shemot 6:12) \"And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: \"The children of Israel would not listen to me, etc.\" What is the intent of \"to say\"? Moses asked the L-rd to answer him whether or not he would redeem them. And He did answer him (Ibid. 7:4) \"And I will take out My hosts. My people, Israel, from the land of Egypt.\" Similarly, (Bamidbar 27:15) \"And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say: (16) Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation.\" What is the intent of \"to say\"? Moses said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not You will appoint leaders (for them). And He did answer him, (Ibid. 18) \"Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun.\" Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) \"And I implored the L-rd at that time to say.\" What is the intent of \"to say\"? He said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not I will enter the land. And He did answer him, (Ibid. 26) \"It is enough for you, etc.\" Here, too, let \"to say\" not be written. But, (the intent is that) he asked Him to answer whether or not He would heal her, and He answered \"Now if her father had spat in her face, etc.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) \"G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You\": Why did Moses not prolong his prayer? So that Israel not say \"His sister is in distress and he stretches out his prayer.\" Variantly: It is not that Moses prays and the L-rd hears his prayer, but (in the order of) (Iyyov 22:28) \"You (the tzaddik) will decree, and it will be fulfilled for you,\" (Isaiah 58:9) \"Then, when you (the tzaddik) call, the L-rd will answer.\" R. Eliezer was asked by his disciples: How long shall a man be in his prayer? He answered: Not longer than Moses, of whom it is written (Devarim 9:18) \"And I fell down before the L-rd (in prayer) as at first, forty days and forty nights.\" And how short should he be in prayer? He answered: Not shorter than Moses, of whom it is written \"G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You.\" There is a time to be short and a time to be long."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 12:14) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc.\" R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah said: There were \"two rebukes,\" viz.: If her father of flesh and blood had rebuked her, she would (sit) in shame (sequestered) for seven days, does it not follow that if (her Father) He who spoke and brought the world into being (rebuked her), (she should be sequestered) fourteen (days)! But \"it suffices that what is derived from an argument a fortiori be as that which it is derived from\" — Just as her father, seven; so, He who spoke and brought the world into being, seven. (Ibid.) \"Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in.\": The Holy One Blessed be He sequestered her, and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her tamei and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her clean. (Ibid. 12:15) \"And the people did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in\": to teach that \"with the measure that a man measures, so is he measured.\" Miriam waited for Moses a short while, viz. (Shemot 2:4) \"And his sister stationed herself at a distance, etc.\"; therefore, the Shechinah, the ark, the Cohanim, the Levites, and the seven clouds of glory did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in. Joseph merited taking the bones of his father (for burial), and there were none among his brothers greater than he, viz. (Bereshit 50:7-9) \"And Joseph went up to bury his father … and there went up with him both chariots and riders.\" Who was greater among us than Joseph, only Moses meriting bringing him to burial. And there is none in Israel greater than he, viz. (Shemot 13:19) \"And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him.\" Who is greater among us than Moses, none but the Holy One Blessed be He bringing him to burial, viz. (Devarim 34:6) \"And He buried him in the valley of the land of Moav\": R. Yehudah says: If it (the above) were not an explicit verse, it would be impossible to say it. Where did Moses die? In the portion of Reuven, viz. (Ibid. 1) \"And Moses went up from the steppes of Moav to Mount Nevo.\" This is the territory of the sons of Reuven, viz. (Bamidbar 32:37-38) \"And the sons of Reuven built Cheshbon and Elalei and Kiryathayim and Nevo.\" And he was buried only in the territory of Gad, viz. (Devarim 33:20-21) \"And to Gad he said: Blessed be he who broadens Gad … and he saw the best for himself. For there the portion of the lawgiver (Moses) is hidden.\" From the portion of Reuven to that of Gad is four mils. Those four mils — Who carried him\"? We are hereby taught that Moses was (carried) in the \"hand\" of the Holy One Blessed be He the four mils from the portion of Reuven to that of Gad, while the ministering angels extolled him in song, (Ibid.) \"He wrought the righteousness of the L-rd and His judgments with Israel.\" And He thus gathers in not only Moses, but all of the righteous, as it is written (Isaiah 58:8) \"And your righteousness shall go before you, and the glory of G-d will gather you in.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) \"And afterwards the people journeyed from Chatzeiroth\": This journey was after Miriam was gathered in."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:2) \"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land of your settlings which I give to you, etc.\": Scripture comes to teach us that Israel were obligated to bring libations (with their offerings) only after inheritance and settlement (of the land [viz. Ibid. 15:5]). You say after inheritance and settlement, but perhaps immediately upon their entry to the land. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:14) \"When you come to the land that the L-rd your G-d gives to you, and you inherit it and you settle in it, etc.\" Since \"comings\" are mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance (above) it is specified, after inheritance and settlement, so all (\"comings\" are understood as) after inheritance and settlement, which teaches us that wherever \"settlings\" is written, after inheritance and settling is understood. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva queried him: But in respect to Shabbath it is written \"settlings\" (viz. Vayikra 23:3), and it obtains both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it! R. Yishmael replied: If \"lighter\" mitzvoth obtain both in the land and outside it, how much more so, Shabbath, the \"graver.\" And it (\"settlings\") comes to teach that in an individual altar (\"bamah\") there is no obligation to bring libations. R. Akiva says: Scripture comes to teach us that libations are to be offered on a bamah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this (\"When you come to the land\") written? For it would follow, since we find that the vessels of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting (viz. I Kings 7:27), so, the libations of the Temple were more than those of the tent of meeting; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:2) \"When you come … (3) and you shall offer, etc.\" to teach that even though there were more vessels in the Temple than in the tent of meeting, there were not more libations. (Ibid. 3) \"and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd\": This implies that all that is offered for the fire requires libations, even a meal-offering. It is, therefore, written \"a burnt-offering.\" This tells me only of a burnt-offering (that it requires libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) peace-offerings? From \"a sacrifice.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) a thank-offering? From \"or a sacrifice.\" This would imply (that libations are required) for these as well as for first-born, tithe, Pesach and guilt-offering. It is, therefore, written \"for an expressed vow or as a guilt-offering.\" Scripture speaks only of offerings that are brought as vow and gift. — But this would imply that I exclude them (from libations) as well as mandatory festival offerings! — It is, therefore, written \"or in your festivals,\" to include these (as requiring libations). — But this would imply (that libations are required for) burnt-offerings and mandatory peace-offerings that are brought on festivals, and for a mandatory sin-offering that is brought on festivals! — It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15;8) \"And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice.\" \"Bullock\" was included in the general category (of offerings) and departed from it (for specific mention) to teach about the category, viz.: Just as \"bullock,\" which is brought for vow or gift (requires libations, so, all (offerings) that are brought for vow or gift require libations) — to exclude sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, which are not brought for vow or gift.",
            " (Bamidbar 15:3) \"to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"and you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,\" I might think that a burnt-offering of fowl (also) requires libations; it is, therefore, written \"of the herd or of the flock\" — to exclude a burnt-offering of fowl as not requiring libations. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yochanan says: This is not needed, for it is already written \"or a sacrifice.\" Just as \"a sacrifice\" is a beast, so, a burnt-offering. What is the intent, then, of \"to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock\"? Because it is written (Vayikra 1:2) \"A man if he offers of you an offering to the L-rd … from the herd and from the flock,\" I might think that if he said: I take it upon myself to bring a burnt-offering he must bring one of each; it is, therefore, written (here) \"of the herd or of the flock,\" that he brings either one by itself. It is written in respect to the Pesach offering (Shemot 12:5) \"from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it.\" Either one by itself? Or, one of each? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:10) \"And if of the flock is his offering, of the sheep or of the goats for a beast-offering.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a burnt-offering, the \"graver\" may be brought from one kind, then Pesach, the \"lighter,\" how much more so may it be brought from one kind! What, then, is the intent of \"from the sheep and from the goats shall you take it\"? Either one by itself. Issi b. Akiva says: \"to present a sweet savor to the L-rd (of the herd or of the flock\"): either one by itself. You say either one by itself, but perhaps (the intent is that he brings) one of each. Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (otherwise), viz.: If the atzereth (Shavuoth) lambs, of which two must be brought (viz. Vayikra 23:19), may come of one kind, then a burnt-offering, two of which need not be brought, how much more so may it come of one kind! — No, this may be true of the two atzereth lambs, Scripture limiting their bringing (to atzereth), for which reason they may come of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture \"expanding\" its bringing — wherefore it must be brought from two kinds! — This is refuted by the he-goats of Yom Kippur, Scripture \"expanding\" their bringing (to two) and yet being brought from one kind. (And they will refute \"burnt-offering\" — that even though Scripture \"expands\" its bringing, it may be brought of one kind.) — No, this may be true of the Yom Kippur he-goats, Scripture limiting their bringing, for they are not brought the whole year, wherefore they may be brought of one kind, as opposed to a burnt-offering, Scripture \"expanding\" its bringing in that it may be brought the entire year — wherefore it should be permitted only of two kinds. This is refuted by a sin-offering, which, even though Scripture \"expands\" its bringing to all the days of the year, may be brought of one kind — so that a burnt-offering, too, should be able to come from one kind. — No, this may be true of a sin-offering, Scripture limiting its bringing, in that it may not be brought as vow or gift, wherefore it is permitted to bring it of one kind, as opposed to burnt-offering, Scripture \"expanding\" its bringing in that it may be brought as vow or gift — wherefore it should be permitted to bring it only of two kinds. It must, therefore, be written (15:3) \"to present a sweet savor to the L-rd, of the herd or of the flock\" — either one by itself. (15:4) \"Then the offerer shall offer\": Because it is written (Vayikra 22:18) \"A man, a man … who offers, etc.\", this tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From \"Then the offerer shall offer\" — in any event. \"Then the offerer shall offer his offering to the L-rd, a meal-offering, an issaron of flour.\" R. Nathan says: This is a prototype for all who donate a meal-offering not to give less than an issaron. \"mixed with a revi'ith of a hin of oil. (5) And wine for libations, a revi'ith of a hin\": oil for mixing and wine for libations. \"shall you present with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice\": What is the intent of this? From (3) \"And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd,\" I might think that if he said \"I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings\" that he may bring one libation for both; it is, therefore, written \"the burnt-offering or the sacrifice (of peace-offerings)\" — he brings one for each in itself. I might think if he said (\"I vow) five lambs for a burnt-offering, five lambs for peace-offerings,\" that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written \"with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice for each lamb\" — he brings for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of this (\"with the burnt-offering or the sacrifice\")? For I would think: If where the rule for an ox burnt-offering is the same as that for a lamb burnt-offering (i.e., that they are both burned), they are not similar in libations, (an ox requiring a half hin, and a lamb, a quarter hin,) then where the rule for a lamb burnt-offering is not the same as that of a lamb of peace-offerings, (the first being burned and the second eaten,) how much more so should they not be similar in libations! It is, therefore, written \"shall you present with the brunt-offering or the sacrifice\" — Even though the rule (for the offering) is not the same, the libations are. R. Nathan says: \"shall you present with the burnt-offering\": This is the burnt-offering of a leper (i.e., even though it is mandatory and not vow or gift, it requires libations). \"or the sacrifice\": This is his (the leper's) sin-offering. \"or the sacrifice\": This is his guilt-offering. \"for each lamb\": to include the burnt-offering of a woman after birth as requiring libations. \"for each lamb\": to include (as requiring libations) the eleventh (which one erroneously designated as the first-born beast-tithe (instead of the tenth). For we nowhere find in the entire Torah that the secondary (the eleventh in this instance, which requires libations,) is severer than the primary (the tenth, which does not). \"And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering (two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil\": Scripture here comes to differentiate between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: cattle require libations and sheep require libations. If Scripture did not differentiate between the libations for a calf, and those for an ox, so, it would not differentiate between those for a lamb and those for a ram. It is, therefore, written \"And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc.\" Scripture differentiates between the libations for a lamb, (\"a quarter of a hin\") and those of a ram (\"a third of a hin\"). Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then where libations (in general) were decreased, how much more so should no differentiation be made between a lamb and a ram! It is, therefore, written \"And if it is a ram, then you shall present as a meal-offering, etc.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a lamb and a ram. (Ibid.) \"mixed with oil, a third of a hin\": For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the lamb of the omer requires two esronim (viz. Vayikra 23:13), and the ram of a burnt-offering requires two esronim, then just as I learned about the lamb of the omer that even though its esronim were doubled, its libations were not doubled (viz. Ibid.), so, the ram of the burnt-offering, even though its esronim were doubled, its libations should not be doubled; it is, therefore, written \"And if it is a ram, then you shall present as the meal-offering, etc., mixed with oil, etc.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that just as its esronim were doubled, so, its libations were doubled (i.e., increased). \"with oil a third of a hin and wine for libations\": oil for mixing; wine, for libations. \"shall you offer, a sweet savor to the L-rd\": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 8) \"And if you offer a bullock as a burnt-offering or as a sacrifice for an expressed vow, etc.\": \"Bullock\" was included in the general category and it departed from that category (for special mention) to teach about the category that just as a bullock comes for a vow or a gift and requires libations, so, all that come for a vow or a gift require libations. (Ibid. 9) \"Then he shall present with the bullock a meal-offering\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3) \"And you shall offer a fire-offering to the L-rd,\" I might think that if he said \"I vow to bring a burnt-offering; I vow to bring peace-offerings,\" he brings one libation for both; it is, therefore, written \"or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings),\" whereby we are taught that he brings one for each in itself. Or (I might think that) even if he said \"I vow to bring five oxen for a burnt-offering; five oxen for peace-offerings,\" I might think that he brings one libation for all; it is, therefore, written \"a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,\" whereby we are taught he brings one for each in itself. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: What is the intent of \"or a sacrifice\"? For it would follow: If (even though) what transpires with a lamb burnt-offering is the same as that which transpires with an ox burnt-offering (i.e., that they are entirely burnt), still, they are not equivalent for libations, then, where what transpires with an ox burnt-offering is not the same as that which transpires with ox peace-offerings, (which are eaten), how much more so should they not be equivalent in libations; it is, therefore, written \"or as a sacrifice (of peace-offerings),\" to teach that even though they are not equivalent in what transpires with them, they are equivalent for libations. (Ibid. 10) \"And wine shall you offer for libations\": oil for mixing; wine, for libations — on bowls. You say \"on bowls,\" but perhaps (the intent is) on the fire. If you say this, you will put out the fire, and the Torah writes (Vayikra 6:6) \"A perpetual fire is to be kept burning on the altar, not to go out.\" How, then, am I to understand \"for libations\"? As meaning \"on bowls.\" \"a sweet savor to the L-rd\": It gives Me pleasure that I say, and My will is done.\" (Ibid. 11) \"Thus shall it be done for the one ox\": Scripture here tells us that the Torah did not differentiate between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Sheep require libations and cattle require libations. If I have learned that the Torah differentiates between libations for a lamb and those for a ram, then so should it differentiate between those for a calf and those for an ox. It is, therefore, written \"Thus shall it be done for the one ox,\" (big or small), the Torah not differentiating between the libations for a calf and those for an ox. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where libations (in general) were decreased, a differentiation was made between a calf and an ox, then, where libations (in general) were increased, how much more so should a differentiation be made between a calf and an ox! It is, therefore, written \"Thus shall it be done for the one ox.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that even though libations (in general) were increased, no differentiation was made between a calf and an ox. (Ibid.) \"or for the one ram\": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations of a one-year old (\"a lamb\") and the libations of a two-year old (\"a ram\"), so it should differentiate between the libations of a two-year old and those of a three-year old. Scripture hereby apprises us (by \"the one ram\") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) \"or for the lamb among the sheep\": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a sheep and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between the libations for a ewe (female)-lamb and those for a (ewe-) sheep. We are hereby apprised (by \"the [female] lamb [one year old] among the sheep [two years old]\") that no such differentiation was made. (Ibid.) \"or among the goats\": Why is this written? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Since we find that the Torah differentiated between the libations for a lamb and those for a ram, so it should differentiate between those for a kid and those for a (full-grown) he-goat; it is, therefore, written \"or among the goats.\" The largest of the goats is hereby equated with the youngest of the lambs. Just as the latter, three logs (i.e., a quarter of a hin), so, the former, three logs. (Ibid. 12) \"Thus shall you do for (each) one\": This tells me only of these (i.e., the original sacrifices). Whence do I derive (the same for) their exchanges? From \"Thus shall you do for each one.\" (Ibid. \"According to the number (of animals) that you offer\": He may not decrease (the number of libations). — But perhaps if he wishes to increase (the number) he may do so. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"According (i.e., strictly according) to their number.\" These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonah says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 15) \"All the native-born shall do (precisely) thus, these things\" — neither to decrease nor to increase. What, then, is the intent of \"According to the number that you offer\"? I might think that if he wishes to double (the original number as a gift) he may do so. It is, therefore, written \"Thus shall you offer (libations) for (each) one, according to their number.\" From here they ruled: It is permitted to intermix the libations for bullocks with those of rams; the libations of lambs with the libation of (other) lambs; the libations of individuals with those of the congregation; the libations of the day with those of the preceding evening (— their numbers being the same.) But it is not permitted to intermix the libations of lambs with those of bullocks and rams (— their numbers not being the same).",
            " (Ibid. 13) \"All the native-born shall thus do, etc.\": From here we learn that libations can be donated. How much? Three logs, (which suffice for a lamb). And whence is it derived that if he wishes to add he may do so? From \"shall do.\" I might think he can decrease; it is, therefore, written \"thus.\" From here it was derived: One is not to donate two or five, (which do not [exactly] suffice for anything), but he may donate three or four or six or above, (which do [exactly] suffice for something). Variantly: What is the intent of \"All the native-born, etc.\"? Because it is written (Vayikra 22:25) \"And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present (as a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of all these (blemished animals)\" — These you do not accept (from gentiles), but you do accept unblemished animals. After we have learned that a gentile may bring a burnt-offering, I can now conclude: An Israelite brings a burnt-offering and a gentile brings a burnt-offering. Can I also conclude: Just as an Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile brings libations? It is, therefore, written \"All the native-born shall thus do these (libations)\" — An Israelite brings libations, but a gentile does not. I might, then, think that his burnt-offering does not require libations; it is, therefore, written \"shall thus do\" (to bring libations) — whence they ruled: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad and sent libations along with it, his own are used; and if not they are to be brought by the congregation."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:14) \"And if a stranger sojourn among you\": This tells me (as being likened to an Israelite in this regard) only of a proselyte who had converted before (i.e., one who had left Egypt with them). Whence do I derive (the same for) one who converts now? From \"and who shall be in your midst throughout your generations.\" \"and he shall offer a fire-offering\": kinds of blood (i.e., animal sacrifices involving blood). You say sacrifices involving blood, but perhaps only a meal-offering (which is entirely burned)! — It is, therefore, written \"Thus shall he do.\" Just as you (in the desert offered) kinds of (sacrifices involving) blood, so, converts offer kinds of blood. — (In that case,) why should we not say: Just as Israel (in the desert offered) blood of a beast ([and not of a fowl] viz. Shemot 24:5), so, converts (are inducted only) through the blood of a beast. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) (\"One Torah and one judgment shall there be) for you (and for the stranger who sojourns with you\") — To you (in general, as requiring blood for induction into Israel) have I likened him and not to (the specifics [i.e., beast versus fowl] of) your offerings. Rebbi says: Just as Israel entered the covenant only with three things — circumcision, immersion, and acceptance of the offering — so, the proselytes, like them. — But perhaps just as Israel through peace-offerings, so, proselytes, through peace-offerings. It is, therefore, written \"And he shall offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L-rd.\" Come and see: Which kind of blood (sacrifice) is relegated entirely to the fire, nothing remaining of it? Only a fowl burnt-offering ([but in a beast burnt-offering, the skin reverts to the Cohanim]). I might think (that the induction of the proselyte can be satisfied) even with a meal-offering; it is, therefore, written (\"As you are) thus (shall the stranger be\"). To bring one bird (as a fowl burnt-offering) is impossible. For we do not find a single bird serving as an offering in the entire Torah — whence it was stated: All the bird couples in the Torah — half is a burnt-offering; half a sin-offering, except for that of a proselyte, which is entirely (relegated) to the fire. Variantly: \"As you do, thus shall he do\": What is the intent of this? For it would follow (otherwise), that since we find the Torah to have differentiated his offering, (Israel bringing [beast] burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and a proselyte, a fowl burnt-offering), it is, therefore, written \"Just as you do (with libations), thus shall he do\" — Just as you, six (logs) for a bullock, four for a ram, and three for a lamb, thus the proselytes.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:15) \"The congregation (— one statute shall there be for you, etc.\"): This (Ibid. 2, \"the sons of Israel\") tells one only of the men (as bringing libations). Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From \"the congregation.\" \"One statute shall there be for you and for the stranger that sojourns (among you\"): Because this speaks of Israel, the proselytes must be (specially) included. \"an everlasting statute unto your generations\": that this (the libations) obtain in all the generations. \"As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd\": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 28:38) \"And it (the head-plate) shall be on his (Aaron's) forehead always for acceptance for them before the L-rd,\" I might think that this applied only to (native-born) Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) proselytes? From \"As you, thus shall the stranger be before the L-rd.\" (Ibid. 16) \"One Torah and one judgment shall there be for you and for the stranger who sojourns among you\": Scripture hereby likens the proselyte to the native-born in respect to all the mitzvoth of the Torah."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:15-17) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there\": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this \"coming\" from all the other \"comings\" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written \"And it shall be, when you come to the land\"; \"And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you\" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written \"upon your coming\" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land \"whither I bring you there\": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) \"and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land,\" and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written \"there\" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of \"when you eat of the bread of the land\"? From (Ibid 20) \"the first of your dough,\" I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here \"bread\" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) \"bread.\" Just as \"bread\" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, \"bread\" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) \"that you shall separate an offering (terumah)\": This speaks of the \"great terumah\" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) \"challah, you shall offer up an offering\" already speaks of challah. How, then, is \"you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the \"great terumah,\" (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) \"The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him\" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written \"You shall separate terumah\" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written \"the first of your dough\" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) \"And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc.\" R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) \"As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it\" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is \"raised\" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan \"whispered\" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written \"As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it.\" It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.",
            " (Bamidbar 15:21) \"Of the first of your dough\": Why is this written? (i.e., It is already written in the preceding verse.) From (the preceding verse) \"The first of your dough,\" I might understand it to mean the first of (all) your doughs. It is, therefore, written \"Of the first of your dough\" — part of it and not all of it. (Ibid. 20) \"The first of your dough\": To include leket (Vayikra 19:9), shikchah (Devarim 24:19), and peah (Vayikra 19:9) as subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce (i.e., rice and millet), which is subject to ma'aser, is exempt from challah, then leket, shikchah, and peah, which are not subject to ma'aser, how much more so should they be exempt from challah! It is, therefore, written \"the first of your dough,\" to include leket, shikchah, and peah as subject to challah. Or, let other produce be subject to challah, viz.: If leket, shikchah, and peah, which are exempt from ma'aser, are subject to challah, then other produce, which is subject to ma'aser, how much more so should it be subject to challah! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) \"bread.\" Just as \"bread\" there, is of the five species, so, \"bread\" here (which is subject to challah) is of the five species. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"The first of your dough\": I would understand this to include the dough of terumah and the dough of second-tithe. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"challah shall you separate as an offering\": (The connotation is:) What is separated is holy and what remains is mundane, and not (as in the above instance) where both are holy. But they said: The dough of second-tithe in Jerusalem is subject to challah, (for second-tithe may be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem, so that it is not \"holy\" there). (Ibid. 21) \"shall you give to the L-rd as an offering\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (20) \"challah shall you separate as an offering,\" but we have not been apprised of the amount of the challah, it is, therefore, written \"shall you give to the L-rd as an offering\" — so that it comprises a \"gift\" to the Cohein. From here we derive: The amount of challah for a private person — one (part) out of twenty-four; for a baker; one out of forty-eight. For the dough of a private person is little, and it (less than one twenty-fourth) does not constitute a \"gift\" to the Cohein, whereas the dough of a baker is (relatively) large and it (one forty-eighth) constitutes a \"gift\" to the Cohein. R. Yehudah says: This is not the reason; but a private person is generous with his dough and a baker is sparing of his dough, and when he minimizes, he should not minimize less than one forty-eighth. From here it was ruled: A private person who makes a feast for his sons — one twenty-fourth; and a woman who bakes and sells in the marketplace — one forty-eighth. If her dough became tamei unwittingly or under constraint — one forty-eighth. If it became tamei willfully (i.e., if she deliberately made it tamei in order to give less challah), she takes one twenty-fourth (even though the challah is to be burned), so that \"the sinner not profit.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: Even if it came out to one-sixtieth, it is valid, so long as there was no (original) intent (for that amount). (Ibid. 21) \"throughout your generations\": to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) as being subject to challah. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If other produce, which is subject to the tithe is exempt from challah, then the after-growths of shevi'ith, which are exempt from the tithe, how much more so should it be exempt from challah! — (No,) this is refuted by leket, shikchah, and peah, which, though exempt from the tithe are subject to challah. — No, this may be true of leket, shikchah, and peah, whose kind (i.e., other produce, which is not leket, etc.) is subject to the tithe — for which reason they are subject to challah, as opposed to the dough of shevi'ith, whose kind is exempt from the tithe, (ownerless produce [hefker] being exempt from the tithe) — wherefore it (the dough) should be exempt from challah. It is, therefore, written \"throughout your generations,\" to include the aftergrowths of shevi'ith as being subject to challah. From here they ruled: If one eats of the aftergrowths of shevi'ith before its challah has been taken, he is liable to the death penalty."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:22) \"And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth\": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression of) which the congregation (i.e., beth-din) brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here removed it from its category (for special mention), that the congregation bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, for which reason this section was stated. \"And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth\": Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks of his transgressing) all of the mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 24) \"And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error\" — Scripture hereby singles out one mitzvah. And which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. You say it is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one of all the mitzvoth stated in the Torah. It is, therefore, written \"And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth\": This comes to define \"the one mitzvah.\" Just as one who transgresses all of the mitzvoth divests himself of the Yoke, and breaks the covenant, and perverts the Torah, so, he who transgresses one mitzvah does the same, as it is written (Devarim 17:2-3) \"to destroy His covenant (— turning to the worship of other gods.\") And \"the covenant\" is nothing other than Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69) \"These are the words of the covenant, etc.\" Rebbi says \"all\" is written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and \"all\" is written elsewhere, (Devarim 5:8) \"all likenesses.\" Just as \"all\" there speaks of idolatry, so, \"all\" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"which the L-rd spoke to Moses\": Whence is it derived that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments? It is written (here, in respect to idolatry) \"which the L-rd spoke to Moses,\" and there, (in respect to the ten commandments, Shemot 20:1) \"And G-d spoke all these words, saying.\" (Psalms 62:12) \"One thing has G-d spoken; (two things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.' and 'There shall not be unto you other gods, etc.'] have I heard.\") (Jeremiah 23:29) \"Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer shattering rock?\") Whence do I derive (the same, i.e., that one who acknowledges idolatry denies [not only what we heard from G-d,]) but also what Moses was commanded (and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23) \"All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses.\" And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the forefathers? From (Ibid.) \"from the day that the L-rd commanded.\" And from when did the L-rd begin to command? From Adam, viz. (Bereshit 2:15) \"And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, etc.\" And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the prophets? From (Ibid.) \"and onwards throughout your generations.\" We are hereby apprised that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments, and what was commanded to Moses, and what was commanded to the forefathers, and what was commanded to the prophets. And one who denies idolatry acknowledges the entire Torah.",
            " (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error\": This mitzvah was allotted a special section in itself. Which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. \"then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock as a burnt-offering.\" Why mention \"one\"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering it brings a bullock for a sin-offering, (viz. Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the congregation does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring a bullock for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written \"then all the congregation shall offer (only) one young bullock.\" \"with its meal-offering and its libation\": that of the burnt-offering. — But perhaps also that of the sin-offering (is intended). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"as ordained\" (and no libation is ordained for a sin-offering). \"and one kid of goats as a sin-offering\": Why mention \"one\"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, it brings two he-goats for a sin-offering, then here, where it does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring two he-goats for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written \"and one kid of goats as a sin-offering.\"",
            " (Ibid. 25) \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel\": Whence is it derived that if one of the tribes did not bring (its offering) atonement is withheld? From \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for the entire congregation of the children of Israel.\" (Ibid.) \"and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unwitting\": I might understand (that they are forgiven) whether unwitting or witting; it is, therefore, written \"for it was unwitting.\" From (24) \"by the eyes of the congregation (i.e., beth-din) it were done in error,\" I would understand that the ruling of beth-din was in error and not willful; but as to the doing (i.e., the transgression) of the congregation, willful was equated with unwitting; it is, therefore, written \"the children of Israel … for it was unwitting.\" If some were willful, I might think that it were considered (collectively) unwitting; it is, therefore, written \"for the entire congregation of the children of Israel … for it was unwitting.\" (Ibid.) \"and they have brought their offering\": R. Meir says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of its beth-din, I might think they bring (the offerings); it is, therefore, written \"and they (i.e., all of the tribes) have brought their offering.\" R. Yoshiyah says: If one tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, whence is it derived that the other tribes bring (the offerings) because of it? From \"and they (connoting all of the tribes) have brought their offering, a fire-offering to the L-rd.\" For R. Yoshiyah says: A tribe that transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din is liable, and the other tribes are exempt. If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of the great beth-din (i.e., the Sanhedrin), then that tribe brings a bullock, and the other tribes bring because of it. And what do they bring because of it? Twelve bullocks. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: If a tribe transgressed according to the (erroneous) ruling of beth-din, it is exempt. If it transgressed according to the ruling of the great beth-din, they bring two bullocks: one for the tribe and one for the beth-din. When is this so? With other mitzvoth; but with idolatry, they bring two bullocks and two he-goats: one bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering for that tribe, and the same for the beth-din. The majority of the congregation is reckoned as all of the congregation. \"and they have brought their offering: a fire-offering to the L-rd\": this is the burnt-offering; \"and their sin-offering\": this is the sin-offering for idolatry; \"their error\": this is the bullock of \"concealment\" of the congregation (viz. Vayikra 4:13-14). \"their sin-offering … for their error\": their sin-offering (i.e., the he-goats [offered] for idolatry) is like their error\" the bullock of \"concealment\" of the congregation, in all of the procedures (of the offering). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 26) \"And it shall be forgiven to the entire congregation of the sons of Israel\": This tells me only of the men. Whence do I derive (the same for) the women? From \"the entire congregation of the children of Israel.\" \"and to the stranger who sojourns in their midst\": Because this section is addressed to the Israelites (viz. 15:12), proselytes had to be (specifically) included. (Ibid.) \"for to all the people it was in error\": to exclude the high-priest, (who offers a she-goat, as an individual (viz. Ibid. 27). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (transgression of) all the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring it for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) just as he brings a bullock for all the mitzvoth should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service) where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 16:3), here, (in respect to idolatry) where the congregation brings a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written \"for to all the people it was in error\" — to exclude the high-priest."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:27) \"And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error\": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring \"a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering\" — for which reason this section was stated. You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry! R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry. \"And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error\": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If \"light\" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the \"grave\" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written \"in error\" — to exclude willful (transgression). \"he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering.\" This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever \"goat\" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning\": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. \"unwitting in sinning\": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the \"grave\" transgression of idolatry! It is, therefore, written \"unwitting in sinning,\" but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. \"to atone for him\": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of \"light\" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore, written \"And he shall atone\" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) \"and he shall be forgiven\": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other \"forgivings\" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) \"The native-born among the children of Israel, etc.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) \"All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth,\" I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written \"the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them.\" This is a prototype: wherever \"native-born\" is written, proselytes are also included. Variantly: What is the intent of \"the native-born among the children of Israel\"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written \"the native-born among the children of Israel\": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.) \"One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly\": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written \"One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you\": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. \"for him who acts unwittingly\": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering.",
            " (Bamidbar 15:30) \"And the soul who acts with a high hand\": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) \"And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest.\" And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) \"And the sister of Lotan was Timna.\" Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) \"You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother. These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you\": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) \"I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes.\" And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) \"Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon\": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as (\"stout\" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will \"pull along\" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah \"tows\" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef).\" R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: \"You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself.\" (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: \"You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it.\" (Ibid.) \"and that soul will be cut off\": \"cutting-off\" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). \"that soul\": who acts deliberately. \"from the midst of its people\": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is a Sadducee. \"and His commandment he has broken\": This is a heretic. Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is one who distorts the Torah. \"and His commandment he has broken\": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to \"thrust\" him from the world! Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised.\" Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) \"I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"cut off shall be cut off\": \"cut off\" — in this world; \"shall be cut off\" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) \"It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, \"and that soul shall be cut off\" — in this world. \"cut off\" — in the world to come. \"cut off shall be cut off\" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) \"its transgression is in it\": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, \"its transgression is in it.\" As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) \"And their transgressions shall be upon their bones.\" — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) \"its transgression is in it,\" and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) \"They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish\" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children. R. Yishmael says: \"its transgression is in it\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) \"He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons,\" I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons \"until the third and fourth generation\"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) \"its transgression is in it\" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation. R. Nathan says: This (\"its transgression is in it\") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.) And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) \"At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc.\" R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here (\"its transgression is in it\") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written \"That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it.\" Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:32) \"And the children of Israel were in the desert, etc.\": Scripture here speaks in disparagement of Israel, that they had observed only the first Shabbath, when they desecrated the second. \"and they found a man mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath day.\" (mekoshesh\" =) pulling (wood) up from the ground. You say that, but perhaps (the reference is to) a man himself, whose name was \"Mekoshesh,\" (who was carrying wood). It is, therefore, written (in negation of this assumption, Ibid. 33) \"And they brought him near, those who found him mekoshesh wood.\" How, then, must I understand (Ibid. 32) \"mekoshesh wood\"? As pulling up wood from the ground. And who was that man? Tzelafchad. It is written here (32) \"desert,\" and elsewhere (27:23) (\"Our father died in the) desert.\" Just as there, Tzelafchad; here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said to him: In either case, you are destined to give an accounting if it is as you say — He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him, and you bring it to light! And you are libeling that tzaddik! But who was it? It was one of \"the bold ones,\" viz. (Ibid. 14:44) \"And they made bold to go up to the top of the mountain.\" (Ibid. 15:32) \"And they found a man pulling up wood.\": We are hereby apprised that Moses appointed watchers (to this end), and they found him pulling up wood. (Ibid. 33) \"And they brought him near — those who found him pulling up wood.\": Why is this mentioned again? Is not already written \"And they found a man, etc.\"? We are hereby taught that they warned him (after finding him) and he continued doing so. R. Yitzchak says: This (repetition) is not necessary (to teach that prior warning is a prerequisite for the administration of the death penalty), viz.: If idolatry, the gravest (of all transgressions) is not liable (to the death penalty) without prior warning, how much more so does this hold for all the mitzvoth of the Torah. What is the intent, then, of \"those who found him\"? We are hereby apprised that they forewarned him, specifying the forbidden labor — whence it is derived that in the instance of all the proto-labors (avoth melachoth) in the Torah, there must be forewarning, specifying the forbidden labor. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) (\"And they brought him near to Moses and to Aaron and to the entire congregation\": If Moses did not know, would Aaron know? — Reverse the verse (i.e., \"they brought him near to Aaron [who did not know] and to Moses,\" and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they came and stood before them."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:34) \"And they placed him in ward\": We are hereby apprised that all who are liable to krithuth (\"cutting off\") are put in ward (pending judgment). \"for it was not made clear what should be done with him\": But is it not written (Shemot 31:14) \"He who profanes it shall be put to death\"? What, then, is the intent of \"For it was not made clear\"? He did not know with what specific type of death until it was told to Him by the Holy One. (Ibid. 35) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Die, shall die the man\": (i.e., this is the judgment) for all the generations (and not just in this particular instance.) \"stone him with stones\": in this particular instance. \"the entire congregation\": in the presence of the entire congregation. You say this, but perhaps it is to be understood literally (i.e., that the entire congregation is to stone him.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 17:7) \"The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death.\" How, then, am I to understand \"the entire congregation\"? As in the presence of the entire congregation. (15:36) \"And the entire congregation took him outside the camp\": We are hereby taught that all those who are liable to the death penalty are put to death outside of beth-din. \"And they stoned him with stones\": One verse states \"with stones,\" and another, (Vayikra 24:23) \"with a stone.\" How are these two verses to be reconciled? The stoning site was two stories high. One of the witnesses pushes him on his thighs. If he turns over on his heart, he is turned over on his thighs. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, the second witness takes a stone and places it on his heart. If he dies thereby, it is sufficient. If not, all of Israel stone him with stones, in fulfillment of \"the hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death, and the hand of all the people thereafter.\" There are thus reconciled \"stone him with stones\" and \"and they stoned him with a stone.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"as the L-rd commanded Moses\": He said to them \"Stone him,\" and they stoned him; \"Hang him up,\" and they hung him up. But we have not (yet) heard that they were to hang him up (after he had been killed.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:22) \"If there be in a man a sin punishable by death, then he is to be put to death and you shall (thereafter) hang him on a tree.\" These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a friend of mine, of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew that the mekoshesh was to be put to death, but he did not know with which specific kind of death. It were fitting that the section of the mekoshesh be stated (entirely) through Moses but the mekoshesh, being liable had it stated through him. For \"merit resolves itself through the meritorious, and liability through the liable.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 15:37-38) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying … and they shall make for themselves tzitzith\": Women, too, are included (in the mitzvah of tzitzith.) R. Shimon exempts women from tzitzith, it being a time-based (only in the daytime) positive commandment, from which women are exempt, this being the principle: R. Shimon said: Women are exempt from all time-based positive commandments. R. Yehudah b. Bava said: Of a certainty, the sages exempted a woman's veil from tzitzith, and they are required in a wrap only because sometimes her husband covers himself with it. \"tzitzith\": \"tzitzith\" is something which \"protrudes\" (\"yotzeh\") somewhat. And the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel have already entered the upper chamber of Yonathan b. Betheira and declared: Tzitzith have no prescribed size. And they declared, similarly: A lulav has no prescribed size. \"and they shall make for themselves tzitzith.\" I might think that one string suffices; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:12) \"Fringes (shall you make for yourself.\") How many fringes? Not fewer than three. These are the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai say: Three of wool and the fourth of tcheleth (blue linen). And the halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai. When is this so (that a minimum size is required)? In the beginning (of its attachment). But for what is left over or lopped off any size (is sufficient). (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and they shall make for themselves tzitzith.\" I might think that all of it shall be tzitzith; it is, therefore, written \"fringes.\" If \"fringes,\" I might think all of it shall be fringes. It is, therefore, written \"tzitzith.\" How is this (to be implemented)? That its fringes protrude from the corner (of the garment), and tzitzith from the fringes. \"in the corners of their garments\": I might think, even garments that are three-cornered, five-cornered, six-cornered, seven-cornered, and eight-cornered; it is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) \"on the four corners of your garment,\" to exclude the aforementioned. And whence is it derived that pillows and covers are (also) excluded (from tzitzith)? From (Ibid.) \"wherewith you cover yourself.\" If from there, I would think that night-clothes are also included (as requiring tzitzith). It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) \"and you shall see it\" — in the daytime and not at night. And if it were intended both for day and night, it requires tzitzith. I might think that this excludes both the above and the garment of a blind man; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) \"And it shall be for you for tzitzith\" — in any event (i.e., to include a blind man). (Ibid. 38) \"and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner a strand of tcheleth\": spun and doubled. This tells me only of the tcheleth, that it is to be spun and doubled. Whence do I derive (the same for) the white (i.e., the wool)? You derive it by induction, viz.: Since the Torah said: \"place\" tcheleth and \"place\" white, just as tcheleth is spun and doubled, so, white is spun and doubled. \"and they shall place\": on the place of the weaving (i.e., the corner of the garment), and not on the place of the \"growing\" (i.e., the strands at the corner of the garment). If he did place it on the site of the \"growing,\" it is (nonetheless) kasher. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov includes it both on the \"growing\" and on the very edge of the garment, it being written \"on the corners of their garments.\" \"and they shall place on the tzitzith (on) the corner\": What is the intent of this? From \"and they shall make for themselves tzitzith, I might think that he should weave it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment; it is, therefore, written \"and they shall place.\" How so? He ties it (the tzitzith) together with it (the garment). (Ibid. 39) \"And it shall be to you for tzitzith\": The four tzitzith are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one there is no mitzvah), the four being one mitzvah. R. Yishmael says: They are four mitzvoth. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: Why is it called \"tcheleth\"? Because the Egyptians were \"bereaved\" (\"nitkelu\" [like \"tcheleth\"]) of their first-born, viz. (Shemot 12:29) \"And it was in the middle of the night, that the L-rd smote every first-born, etc.\" Variantly: Because the Egyptians were \"destroyed\" (\"kalu\") in the Red Sea. Why is it called \"tzitzith\"? Because the L-rd \"looked\" (\"hetzith\") over our fathers' houses in Egypt, as it is written (Song of Songs 2:9) \"The voice of My Beloved, behold, it is coming … My Beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart … Behold, He stands behind our wall, looking through the windows, peering through the lattices.\" R. Chanina b. Antignos says: One who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, what is said of him? (Zechariah 8:23) \"In these days it will happen that ten men, of all the languages of the nations will take hold of the corner (i.e., of the tzitzith) of a Jewish man, saying 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you!'\" And one who nullifies the mitzvah of \"the corner,\" what is said of him? (Iyyov 38:13) \"to take hold of the corners of the earth and to shake the wicked from it!\" R. Meir says: It is not written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 39) \"And you shall see them\" (the tzitzith), but \"And you shall see Him.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that if one fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, it is reckoned unto him as if he beheld the face of the Shechinah. For tcheleth is reminiscent of (the color of) the sea; the sea, of the firmament; and the firmament, of the Throne of Glory, as it is written (Ezekiel 1:26) \"And above the firmament that was over their heads … (28) the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the L-rd.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and you shall see and you shall remember\": See this mitzvah and remember another mitzvah, (which is contingent upon it.) Which is that? The recitation of the Shema — But perhaps (the reference is to) one of all the other mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, written (in the section of tzitzith, Ibid. 41) \"I am the L-rd your G-d,\" which you find to be written only in (the section of) the recitation of the Shema. \"and you shall remember\": Remember (i.e., recite) the section with your mouth. I might think that the section \"vehaya im shamoa\" (Devarim 11:13-21) should precede all of the sections. — Would you say that? The section of Shema (Devarim 6:4-9), which contains acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven should precede \"vehaya im shamoa,\" which contains acceptance of the yoke of mitzvoth, and \"vehaya im shamoa,\" which obtains both in the daytime and at night, should precede the section of tzitzith (\"vayomer\" [Bamidbar 15:37-41]), which obtains only in the daytime. And perhaps he should recite three (sections) in the evening as he does in the daytime. It is, therefore, written (of tzitzith [Bamidbar 15:39]) \"and you shall see it\" — in the daytime and not at night. R. Shimon b. Yochai says: The section of Shema, which contains (the mitzvah of) learning (Torah), should precede \"vehaya im shamoa,\" which speaks only of teaching. And \"vehaya im shamoa\" should precede the section of tzitzith, which is only to do (i.e., the final stage). For thus was Torah given: to learn and to teach, to keep and to do: \"And you shall see it, and you shall remember (all the mitzvoth of the L-rd, and you shall do them.\"): Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who fulfills the mitzvah of tzitzith, (which is only a sign and a remembrance towards the doing of mitzvoth,) is accounted as one who has fulfilled all of the mitzvoth, how much more so (is this true of) one who (actively) performs (any one of) all the mitzvoth of the Torah! \"And you shall not go astray after your hearts\": This is heresy, as it is written (Koheleth 7:26) \"And I find more bitter than death 'the woman' (heresy), whose heart is snares and nets. Her hands are bonds. The good before G-d shall escape her.\" \"and after your eyes\": This is harlotry, as it is written (Judges 14:3) \"Take her for me, for she is just in my eyes.\" \"after which you go astray\": This is idolatry, as it is written (Ibid. 8:33) \"and they went astray after the ba'alim.\" R. Nathan says: that one not \"drink\" in this \"cup\" (i.e., his own wife), and cast his gaze at the \"cup\" of another. Variantly: \"And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes\": This teaches us that the eyes follow the heart. — But perhaps the heart follows the eyes! Would you say that? Are there not blind men who commit all the abominations in the world? What, then, is the intent of \"And you shall not go astray after your hearts, etc.\"? That the eyes follow the heart. R. Yishmael says: \"And you shall not go astray after your hearts\": What is the intent of this? From (Koheleth 11:9) \"Rejoice young man in your youth (… and walk in the ways of your heart\"), (I would not know whether) in a way that is straight or in (any) way that you like; it is, therefore, written \"And you shall not go astray after your hearts.\" (Ibid. 40) \"So that you remember and you do (all of My mitzvoth): This equates remembering with doing. \"and you shall be holy to your G-d\": This refers to the holiness of all of the mitzvoth. You say the holiness of (all the) mitzvoth, but perhaps the holiness of tzitzith (is intended). — Would you say that? What is the (general) context? The holiness of all the mitzvoth. Rebbi says: The reference is to the holiness of tzitzith. You say the holiness of tzitzith, but perhaps the holiness of all the mitzvoth is intended. — (Vayikra 19:2) \"Holy shall you be\" already refers to the holiness of all the mitzvoth. How, then, am I to understand \"and you shall be holy to your G-d\"? As referring to the holiness of tzitzith — whence it is seen that tzitzith add holiness to Israel. (Ibid. 41) \"I am the L-rd your G-d, who took you out of the land of Egypt.\": Why is this mentioned here? So that one not say: I will take imitation-dyed threads (and attach them to my garment) as tcheleth, and who will know the difference? If (within the framework of) the measure of punishment, the lesser measure (of the L-rd) — if one sins in secret, He exposes him in public, (as He did in Egypt), then, (within the framework of) the measure of good, the greater measure (of the L-rd) — how much more so (does this hold true)! Variantly: Why is the exodus from Egypt mentioned in connection with every mitzvah? An analogy: The son of a king's loved one was taken captive. When he (the king) redeems him, he redeems him not as a son, but as a servant, so that if he (the son) does not accept his decree, he can say to him \"You are my servant!\" When they enter the province, he (the king) says to him: Put on my sandals and carry my things before me to the bath-house. The son begins to object, whereupon the king presents him with his writ (of servitude) and says to him: \"You are my servant!\" Thus, when the Holy One Blessed be He redeemed the seed of His loved one, He did not redeem them as \"sons,\" but as servants, so that if they reject His decree He says to them: \"You are My servants!\" When they went to the desert, He began to decree upon them some \"light\" mitzvoth and some formidable ones, such as Shabbath, illicit relations, tzitzith, and tefillin, and Israel began to object — whereupon He said to them: \"You are My servants! On that condition I redeemed you; on condition that I decree and you fulfill!\" \"I am the L-rd your G-d\": Why is this stated again? Is it not already written (Shemot 20:2) \"I am the L-rd your G-d who took you out of the land of Egypt\"? Why state it again? So that Israel not say: Why did the L-rd command us (to do mitzvoth)? Is it not so that we do them and receive reward? We shall not do them and we shall not receive reward! As Israel said (Ezekiel 20:1) \"There came to me (Ezekiel) men of the elders of Israel to make inquiry of the L-rd, and they sat before me.\" They said to him: A servant whose Master has sold him, does he not leave His domain? Ezekiel: Yes. They: Since the L-rd has sold us to the nations, we have left His domain. Ezekiel: A servant whose Master has sold him in order to return, does he leave His domain? (Ibid. 32-33) \"And what enters your minds, it shall not be, your saying: We will be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the L-rd G-d. I swear to you that I will rule over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath!\" \"with a strong hand\": pestilence, as it is written (in that regard, Shemot 9:3) \"Behold, the hand of the L-rd is in your cattle, etc.\" \"with an outstretched arm\": the sword, as it is written (I Chronicles 21:16) \"with his (the angel's) sword drawn in his hand, stretched over Jerusalem.\" \"and with outpoured wrath\": famine. After I bring these three calamities upon you, one after the other, I will rule over you perforce!",
            " R. Nathan said: There is no mitzvah in the Torah whose reward is not \"at its side.\" Go and learn this from the mitzvah of tzitzith. There was once a certain man who was particularly diligent in the mitzvah of tzitzith. Once, hearing of a (\"famed\") harlot in the cities of the sea, who took four hundred gold coins as her hire, he sent her that sum, and she set a time for him. When the appointed time came, he went there and sat at the door of her house. Her maid-servant went in and said to her: That man whom you appointed a time for is sitting at the door of the house. The harlot: Let him come in. When he came in, she spread seven beds for him, six of silver and one of gold, and she was on the uppermost. Between each one was a silver ladder, and the uppermost, of gold. When he came to the act, his four tzitzith came and struck him across his face. They seemed to him like four men. He immediately left off and sat upon the ground. She, too, left off and sat upon the ground. She said to him \"'Gapa of Rome' (an idolatrous oath), I shall not let you go until you tell me what blemish you have seen in me!\" He: I swear, I have seen no blemish in you. There is no beauty like yours in all the world, but there is one mitzvah (tzitzith) concerning which it is written two times (Bamidbar 15:41) \"I am the L-rd your G-d.\" \"I am the L-rd your G-d\" — I am destined to reward; \"I am the L-rd your G-d\" — I am destined to punish. And now they appeared to me as four witnesses (testifying to the above). At this, she said: I swear that I will not let you go until you write for me your name, the name of your city, and the name of the place where you study Torah. He wrote for her his name, the name of his city, the name of his master, and the name of the place where he studied Torah — whereupon she arose and divided all of her wealth: a third to the authorities (for permission to convert), a third to the poor, and a third which she took with her, in addition to those spreads. When she came to R. Meir's house of study, she said to him: My master, convert me. R. Meir: Is it possible that you have \"cast your eyes\" upon one of my disciples! At this, she took out the note that she had with her, and he said to her: \"Go and claim your purchase!\" Those spreads which she had spread for him unlawfully, she now spread for him lawfully, This was her reward in this world. As to the world to come, I do not know how much."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:1) \"And the L-rd said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.\": R. Yishmael says: Because the thing (i.e., what follows) is relegated to Aaron, it is he that is exhorted. R. Yoshiyah says: Whence is it derived that if he (a Cohein) sprinkled the blood without knowing in whose name he is doing so or smoked the fat without knowing in whose name he is doing so, that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From \"You and your sons and the house of your father shall bear the sin of the sanctuary.\" R. Yonathan says: Whence is it derived that if he took the flesh (of a sin-offering or a burnt-offering) before the blood was sprinkled (viz. Vayikra 7:7), or the breast and the shoulder before the smoking of the fats (viz. Ibid. 7:31), that the Cohanim bear the sin for this? From (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.\" And thus do we find that the decree of Eli was sealed only because they (the Cohanim) abused the offerings, as it is written (I Samuel 2:15) \"Even before they would burn the fat … (16) And the man would say: Let them first burn the fat today (upon the altar) … (17) And the sin of the youths (the attendants of the Cohanim was very great, etc.\" And similarly we find that the decree of the men of Jerusalem was decreed only because they abused the offerings, viz. (Ezekiel 22:8) \"You abused My offerings.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And you and your sons with you shall bear the sin of your priesthood.\": This refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the Cohanim (i.e., to keep zarim [non-priests] from entering the sanctuary). You say this, but perhaps it refers to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to beth-din, (it being their duty to exhort the Cohanim in this regard.) (This is not so, for [Ibid. 7]) \"You and your sons, with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar\" already speaks of what is relegated to beth-din. How, then, am I to understand \"you shall bear the sin of your priesthood\"? As referring to a sin (in the area of) what is relegated to the priesthood. (Ibid. 1) \"And you and your sons with you\": and not Israelites (i.e., they are not to guard the sanctuary.) You say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Cohanim, but perhaps Levites, (who also guard the sanctuary) do bear the sin of the Cohanim, (who are remiss in this regard.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 23) \"And they (the Levites) shall bear their (own) sin\" (of remissness), but not the sin of the Cohanim. (Ibid. 2) \"And also your brothers\": I might think that this also includes Israelites. It is, therefore, written \"the tribe of Levi.\" I might think that the women, too, are included. It is, therefore, written \"your brothers\" — to exclude the women. \"draw near with you\": R. Akiva says: It is written here \"with you,\" and elsewhere, (Ibid. 7) \"with you.\" Just as here, the Levites are being referred to, so, there, the Levites are being referred to — to exhort the Levites (against defect) in the song at their stand. (Ibid. 2) \"and they shall be joined to you and they shall serve you\": through their service. Treasurers and trustees are to be appointed from among them. You say this, but perhaps the intent is that they shall serve you (the Cohanim) in your (priestly) service. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 3) \"And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent.\" — But perhaps (both are intended, i.e.,) they shall serve you in your (priestly) service and they shall serve you through their service. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6) \"And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd.\" To the L-rd are they given, and not to the Cohanim — whereby we derive that it is not to be construed in the second way (i.e., \"for your [priestly] service\"), but in the first way, i.e., their being appointed as treasurers and trustees. \"and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony\": the Cohanim within, (in the court of the sanctuary,) and the Levites outside (the court). You say this, but perhaps the intent is both, within. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4) \"And they (the Levites) will join you, and they will keep (the watch of) the watch (by the Cohanim within) of the tent of meeting.\" How, then, am I to understand \"and you and your sons with you, before the tent of Testimony\"? The Cohanim within, and the Levites outside. (Ibid. 3) \"And they shall keep your charge and the charge of all the tent\": As stated above: They will serve you through their service, and appoint from among them treasurers and trustees. \"But to the vessels of the kodesh they shall not come near.\" This \"hakodesh\" (\"the holy\") refers to the ark, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) \"And they (the Levites) shall not come to see (the vessels) when the kodesh is being covered and they (the Levites) die.\" \"and to the altar\": This refers to the (sacrificial) service of the altar. \"they shall not come near\": the exhortation. \"and they shall not die\": the punishment. This tells me only of the Levites, that they are punished and exhorted for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) Cohanim (appropriating) the service (i.e., singing) of the Levites? From (\"so that they not die,) both they (the Levites) and you\" (the Cohanim.) And it once happened that R. Yehoshua b. Chanania sought to assist R. Yochanan b. Gogada, when he (R. Yehoshua) said to him: Get back, for you are close to forfeiting your life! For I am of the gatekeepers and you are of the singers. Rebbi says that this (\"both they and you\") is not needed (for the above learning). For it is already written (Bamidbar 4:18-19) \"Do not cut off the tribe of the families of the Kehathi … but do this for them and they will live,\" (the implication being that otherwise they will die.) This tells me only of the sons of Kehath. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari? From (Ibid. 19) \"Aaron and his sons shall come and set them (the sons of Levi), each man to his service and to his burden.\" This tells me only that the Levites are punished for (appropriating) the service of the Cohanim. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Cohanim (appropriating) the service of the Levites? From (Bamidbar 1:51) \"And when the mishkan travels, the Levites (and not the Cohanim) shall dismantle it. And the stranger (a non-Levite) that draws near (to this service) shall be put to death.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) one who goes from his (assigned) service to another? From (Ibid. 3:38) \"And those who encamped before the mishkan, in front, before the tent of meeting on the east\" (i.e., only these being assigned to the aforementioned service) … and the stranger (to that service, [even a Levite]) that draws near shall be put to death.\" What, then, is the need for \"so that they not die both they and you\"? Because Korach came and contested Aaron's prerogative, Scripture reiterated the entire exhortation (on demarcation of bounds). Variantly: \"both they and you\": Just as you (the Cohanim, are thus forewarned) vis-à-vis the altar service, so, they (the Levites, are thus forewarned). R. Nathan says: Levitical singing is hereby intimated in the Torah, but it (i.e., its nature) was explicated by Ezra. Chanania, the son of the brother of R. Yehoshua says: This (intimation) is not needed, for it is already written (Shemot 19:19) \"and G-d answered him (Moses, the Levite) by voice\" — relative to the mitzvah of the voice, whence (the mitzvah of Levitical) singing is intimated in the Torah. (Bamidbar 18:4) \"And they shall join you\": As we have stated, the Cohanim (keep guard) on the inside, and the Levites, on the outside. (Ibid.) \"and a stranger shall not draw near to you\": Why is this written? (i.e., it has already been mentioned.) — \"and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death\" tells us (only of) the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From \"and a stranger shall not draw near to you.\" (Ibid. 5) \"And you shall keep the charge of the sanctuary and the charge of the altar.\": This is an exhortation to a beth-din of Israelites to exhort the Cohanim towards the proper performance of the (sacrificial) service, which (service), when properly performed, fends off calamity from the world. (Ibid.) \"so that there be no more wrath.\" Why \"no more\"? For He has already vented His wrath (viz. 17:11). Similarly, (Bereshit 9:11) \"and no more shall there be a flood.\" Why \"no more\"? For it has already happened. Similarly, (Vayikra 18:7) \"And they shall no more offer their sacrifices to the goat-demons.\" Why \"no more\"? Because it already happened (in Egypt, viz. Ezekiel 20:7). Similarly, (Bamidbar 18:22) \"And the children of Israel shall no more draw near to the tent of meeting.\" Why \"no more\"? Because they had already done so (in the time of Korach, viz. Ibid. 16:35). Here, too, (Ibid. 18:5) \"so that there be no more wrath.\" Why \"no more\"? For He had already vented His wrath, as it is written (Ibid. 17:11) \"for the wrath has gone forth, etc.\"",
            " (Ibid. 6) \"And I, behold, I have taken your brothers, the Levites, from the midst of the children of Israel, for you as a gift, given to the L-rd.\" They are given to the L-rd (for His service) and not to the Cohanim. (Ibid. 7) \"And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for every thing of the altar\": From here, R. Eliezer Hakappar berebbi was wont to say: Whatever pertains to the altar should be only to you and your sons. \"and within the parocheth (the curtain)\" — whence they stated: There was a place behind the inside of the holy of holies, where the genealogy of the priests was ascertained. \"and you shall serve\": I might think, in concert; it is, therefore, written \"a service of matanah.\" Just as \"matanah\" (the application of the blood of the sacrifices) is by lottery, so, all of the (other) services is by lottery. \"As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you)\": This equates the eating of kodshim (i.e., terumah, etc.) in the provinces (i.e., outside of the Temple) with the service of the Temple in the Temple. And it once happened that R. Tarfon (a Cohein) was late in coming to the house of study, whereupon R. Gamliel asked him: Why are you late? And he responded: I was serving (as a Cohein). R. Gamliel: All of your words are a puzzle. Is there (Temple) service now (that the Temple has been destroyed)? R. Tarfon: It is written \"As a service of gift have I given your priesthood (to you).\" This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple. Rebbi says: \"This equates the eating of kodshim in the provinces with the service of the Temple in the Temple\" — Just as with the service of the Temple in the Temple, he first washes his hands and then serves, so, with the eating of kodshim in the provinces — he first washes his hands and then eats. — But perhaps just as there, he washes both his hands and his feet, so, here! — Would you say that? In a place (the Temple) where he must wash his hands and his feet (in that he is standing on holy ground), he does so; but in a place where he needs to wash only his hands, that is what he does. We hereby learn the washing of the hands to be scripturally prescribed. \"and the stranger (i.e., the non-priest) that draws near shall be put to death\": (\"that draws near\") to (do) the (priestly) service. You say, to the service, but perhaps (the same obtains) to the service or not to the service, (but merely for entering). Would you say that? Now if one (a Cohein) who is blemished, who is only under an exhortation (and not subject to the death penalty), was exhorted only for performing a service, then a stranger, who is subject to the death penalty, how much more so is he to be punished only for a service! What, then, is the intent of \"and the stranger that draws near is to be put to death? (\"who draws near\") to the service. \"and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death\": even if he serves in (a state of) purity. — But perhaps (the intent is) if the serves in a state of tumah. — Would you say that? If one who (only) enters in (a state of) tumah, not for a service, is liable (to the death penalty [viz. Bamidbar 19:13]), how much more so one who serves (in a state of tumah)! What, then, is the intent of \"and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death\"? Even if he serves in (a state of) purity. R. Yishmael says: It is written here \"he shall be put to death,\" and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 17:28) \"Whoever draws near, who draws near to the mishkan of the L-rd, shall die.\" Just as there, at the hands of Heaven; here, too, at the hands of Heaven. R. Akiva says: It is written here \"he shall be put to death,\" and, elsewhere, (Devarim 13:6) \"And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.\" Just as there, by strangulation, here, too, by strangulation. \"and the stranger that draws near shall be put to death.\" We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:4) \"and a stranger shall not draw near to you.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:8) \"And the L-rd spoke to Aaron\": I would think (the intent is) that the speaking was to Aaron; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17:5) \"A sign for the children of Israel … as the L-rd spoke to Moses about him\" (Aaron, viz., that only he and his sons are to be Cohanim), whereby we are apprised that the speaking was to Moses, to tell to Aaron. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And I, behold, (I have given to you\") with joy, (the twenty-four priestly gifts.) These are the words of R. Yishmael — whereupon his disciples said to him: But master, it is written (Bereshit 6:17) \"And I, behold, shall bring a flood of water, etc.\" Are we, then to assume that this was a joy to Him? He answered: When His angerers go lost from the world, it is a joy to Him. And thus is it written (Proverbs 11:10) \"When the righteous prosper, the city exults, and when the wicked perish there is rejoicing.\" And (Psalms 3:9-10) \"You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Deliverance is the L-rd's. Upon Your people are Your blessings, selah.\" And (Ibid. 10:16) \"The L-rd is King for ever and ever. Nations have gone lost from His land.\" And (Ibid. 104:35) \"Sinners will end from the earth, and the wicked will be no more. Bless the L-rd, O my soul, Hallelukah!\" R. Nathan said to him: I will add to your words: \"And I\" — willingly; \"behold\" — with joy. And thus is it written (Shemot 4:14) \"Behold, he (Aaron) is going out to meet you (Moses; and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart.\"",
            " (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.\": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"to you have I given them (the gifts)\": in your merit \"lemashchah\": \"meshichah\" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) \"This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc.\" R. Yitzchak says \"mishchah\" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) \"the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and to your sons\": in the merit of your sons. \"as an everlasting statute\": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) \"This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire\": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) \"all of their offerings\": the two loaves and the show-bread. \"all of their meal-offerings\": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. \"all of their sin-offerings\": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. \"all of their guilt-offerings\": the \"certain\" guilt-offering, the \"suspended\" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. \"which they shall return to Me\": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). \"holy of holies\": This refers to the leper's log of oil. \"to you and to your sons\": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) \"In the holy of holies shall you eat it\": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From \"In the holy of holies shall you eat it.\" (Ibid.) \"Every male shall eat it\": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. \"Holy shall it be to you\": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From \"Holy shall it be to you.\" (Ibid. 11) \"And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings\": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. \"From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel\": This thing requires waving. \"To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute\": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. \"Every clean one in your house shall eat it\": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. \"All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat\": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. \"All the best of the oil\": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). \"and all the best, etc.\": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). \"the first of them\": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). \"which they shall give\": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). \"to the L-rd\": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) \"the first-fruits of all that is in their land\": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness \"takes\" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness \"takes\" on bikkurim and holiness \"takes\" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not \"take\" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written \"the first-fruits of all that is in their land,\" to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) \"To you have I given them\": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) \"Every clean one of your household shall eat it\": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) \"Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)\"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) \"Every clean one in your house shall eat it\" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand \"Every clean one of your household\"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) \"a toshav … shall not eat of it\"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand \"Every clean one of your household may eat of it\"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) \"and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing\" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.",
            " (Bamidbar 18:14) \"Every devoted thing (i.e., a thing dedicated to the Temple) in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's)\": This tells me only of the devoted objects of Israelites. Whence do I derive (the same for) the devoted objects of gentiles, women, and bondsmen? From \"Every devoted thing in Israel.\" R. Yossi Haglili says: Unqualified \"devotions\" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Vayikra 27:21) \"As a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding.\" Even if he specified \"for Temple maintenance\"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 28) \"Every devoted thing (specified as) holy of holies reverts to the L-rd.\" R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: All unqualified \"devotions\" revert to Temple maintenance, it being written \"Every (unqualified) \"devotion\" is holy of holies to the L-rd.\" Even if he specified \"to the Cohanim\"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid.) \"Ach\" (\"But\" [to exclude the above instance]). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: All unqualified \"devotions\" revert to the Cohanim, it being written (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours.\" Even if he specified \"to the L-rd\"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"Every devoted thing is holy of holies to the L-rd\" (when specified as such.) R. Shimon says: All unqualified \"devotions\" revert to Heaven, it being written \"holy of holies to the L-rd.\" — Even if he specified \"to the Cohein\"? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours (the Cohein's).\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:15) \"All that opens the womb of all flesh\": I would think an animal, too, is included (in redemption of the first-born); it is, therefore, written \"which they offer to the L-rd\" (as a sacrifice) — to exclude an animal (as opposed to a beast, which is not offered). This (\"which they offer\") implies that both an animal and a blemished (beast) are excluded (from redemption); it is, therefore, written (\"in man) and in beast\" — to include a blemished (beast) in redemption, (as a blemished man is included). \"in man and in beast\"; What obtains with the man (i.e., redemption) obtains with his beast\" — to exclude Levites: Redemption not obtaining with them, it does not obtain with their (unclean) beast (i.e., an ass). And the first-born of a man is likened to the first-born of a beast, and the first-born of a best to the first-born of a man. Just as with the first-born of a beast, a miscarriage is exempt from the mitzvah of the first-born, so, with the first-born of a man. Just as the (redemption money) for a man is given to a Cohein in whichever place he (the man) wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. For I would think that since it is written (Devarim 12:6) \"And you shall bring there (to the Temple) your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices,\" then even if he were distant from it, he must exert himself and bring it (the first-born beast) to the Temple; it is, therefore, written \"in man and in beast.\" Just as the redemption money for a man may be given to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes, so, he may give the first-born of a beast to a Cohein in whichever place he wishes. And just as the first-born of a man must be cared for for thirty days (before redemption [viz. Bamidbar 18:16]), so, the first-born of a beast. (Ibid. 15) \"but redeem shall you redeem\": This is what was asked in Kerem Beyavneh before the sages: If a first-born (beast) dies, is it to be redeemed and fed to the dogs? R. Tarfon expounded, \"but redeem shall you redeem, etc.\" You redeem the unclean (beast, i.e., an ass), and you do not redeem the clean, neither alive nor dead. \"and the first-born of the unclean beast shall you redeem\": I would think that this applied to all the unclean beasts; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 13:13) \"And every first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep\" — You redeem an ass, but you do not redeem the first-born of any other unclean beast. I might think that the first-born of an ass is redeemed with a sheep, and the first-born of all other unclean beasts, with clothing and vessels; it is, therefore, written again (Shemot 34:20) \"And the first-born of an ass you shall redeem with a sheep.\" The first-born of an ass you redeem with a sheep, but the first-born of all other unclean beasts you do not redeem at all. If so, what is the intent of (Bamidbar 18:15) \"the first-born of the unclean beast you shall redeem\"? If it does not apply to the first-born, understand it as applying to dedication to Temple maintenance, an unclean beast being dedicated to Temple maintenance, whence it is then redeemed (viz. Vayikra 27:27). (Bamidbar 18:15) (\"And the first-born of the unclean beast) shall you redeem\": immediately. You say, immediately, but perhaps the intent is after some time (i.e., after thirty days). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 16) \"And his redemption (that of a human first-born), from one month shall you redeem.\" The first-born of a man is redeemed with five shekalim and is redeemed after (one month's) time; but the first-born of an ass is redeemed immediately or at any time (thereafter). \"And his redemption, from one month shall you redeem\": \"money, five shekalim\" tells me only of money. Whence do I derive (the same for something that has) the value of money? From \"And his redemption, etc.\" I might think, (his redemption) with anything. It is, therefore, written \"And his redemption\" — general; \"money, five shekalim\" — particular. \"general-particular.\" (The rule is) there is in the general only what is in the particular (i.e., \"money,\" literally). \"you shall redeem\" — again general. — But perhaps it (the particular) reverts to the first \"general\" (viz. Shemot 13:13) \"And every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem,\" (so that we have an instance of general particular.) Would you say that? (i.e., This is unlikely because the particular is too far removed from that \"general.\") We have, then, an instance of general-particular-general (as stated above). And (the rule is:) We follow the nature of the particular, viz.: Just as the particular is movable property, worth money, so, the general is of that nature — whence they ruled: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with bondsmen, writs, and land. Rebbi says: The first-born of a man may be redeemed with all things, except with writs. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"It is twenty gerah\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written [Vayikra 27:25] \"Twenty gerah shall the shekel be.\") Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the amount) he may do so? From \"it shall be.\" I might think that if he wishes to decrease, he may do so. It is, therefore, written \"shall be.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"But the first-born of an ox\": It must look like an ox. \"a sheep\": It must look like a sheep. \"a goat\": It must look like a goat — to exclude a hybrid or a nidmeh (superficially similar). \"you shall not redeem\": I might think that if he redeemed it, it remains redeemed; it is, therefore, written \"They are consecrated.\" R. Yoshiyah says: Why is this (\"they are consecrated\") written? (i.e., it is already written [Shemot 13:2] \"Consecrate unto Me every first-born\") To include a (beast-) tithe and the Paschal lamb as requiring one spilling (of blood on the altar), something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. R. Yitzchak says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Devarim 12:27) \"and the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled out\" — to include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring one spilling. What, then, is the intent of \"They are consecrated\"? To include the tithe and the Pesach as requiring smoking of the fats, something which was not spelled out in all of the Torah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: This (derivation) is not needed. For it follows a fortiori, viz.: If other offerings, which are not similar in their applications of blood, are similar in their smoking of fats, then the tithe and the Pesach, which are similar (in a first-born) in their application of blood, how much more so should they be similar in their smoking of fats! What, then, is the intent of \"They are consecrated\"? What we have mentioned heretofore (i.e., to include tithe and Pesach as requiring one spilling of blood). \"Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar\": one application. You say one application, but perhaps (the intent is) two applications that are four (i.e., one on the north-east corner and one on the south-west corner.) — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased (viz. Vayikra 3:2), blood is decreased (i.e., only two applications that are four), then here (with first-born, tithe and Pesach), where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! Or, conversely, if in a place (first-born, tithe, and Pesach), where fats are decreased, blood is increased (to two applications that are four), then in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where fats are increased, how much more so should blood be increased (to more than two applications that are four)! It is, therefore, written (of the other offerings) (Vayikra 1:11) \"And the Cohanim\" shall sprinkle … roundabout\" — two applications that are four. I have reasoned a fortiori and adduced the converse. The converse has been rejected and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If in a place where fats are increased, blood is decreased, then here, where fats are decreased, how much more so should blood be decreased (to only one application)! What, then, is the intent of \"Their blood shall you sprinkle\"? One application. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and their fats shall you smoke\": Does Scripture speak of an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled, or also with the fats of the rib cage? — Would you say that? If in a place (i.e., with other offerings), where blood is increased, fats are decreased, (the rib-cage fats, not being smoked) — then here, (vis-à-vis the first-born, where blood is decreased, how much more so should fats be decreased! How, then, am I to understand \"and their fats shall you smoke\"? As referring to an (even) layer of fat (covered with) a membrane and (easily) peeled. \"a fire-offering\": Even though you consign it to the wood pile, it is not acceptable until it is consumed by the fire. \"a sweet savor to the L-rd\": It is My pleasure that I have spoken and My will has been done. (Ibid. 18) \"And their flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast\": Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. This question was asked before the sages in Kerem Beyavneh: For how long is first-born eaten? R. Tarfon answered and said: For two days and one night. There was a certain disciple there, who had come to serve in the house of study first, R. Yossi Haglili by name. He asked him: My master, how do you know this? R. Tarfon: First-born is kodshim (consecrated) and peace-offerings are kodshim. Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born. R. Yossi: My master, a sin-offering is a gift to the Cohein, and a first-born is a gift to the Cohein. Just as a sin-offering is eaten for one day and one night, so, a first-born. R. Tarfon: My son, I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing that is a lower-order offering (first-born) from a thing which is a lower-order offering (peace-offerings), and I will not learn a thing which is a lower-order offering from a thing which is holy of holies (a sin-offering). R. Yossi: My master, I will learn a thing from a thing and I will derive a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (first-born) from a thing which is a gift to the Cohein (sin-offering), and I will not learn a thing which is a gift to the Cohein from a thing which is not a gift to the Cohein (peace-offerings). R. Tarfon kept quiet and R. Akiva jumped up and said to him: My son, this is how I expound it; \"and its flesh shall be for you as the wave-breast.\" Scripture came and likened first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so first-born. R. Yossi: You liken it to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings, and I liken it to breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Just as these are eaten for one day and one night, (viz. Vayikra 7:16) so, first-born. R. Akiva: My son, this is how I expound it: \"And their flesh shall be for you as wave-breast.\" There is no need to add (Ibid.) \"for you shall it be.\" It (\"for you shall it be') is adding another \"being\" (of one day), that it (first-born) be eaten for two days and one night (— like peace-offerings, and not like thank-offerings). R. Yishmael said: Now where is thank-offering derived from (i.e., that breast and shoulder be given to the Cohanim)? Is it not from (its being likened to) peace-offerings? And something (i.e., first-born), which is derived from something else (i.e., peace-offerings), you (R. Yossi) would come and liken it (first-born) to something else (i.e., thank-offerings, that it [first-born] be eaten for one day and one night as thank-offerings are)? Would you learn something (i.e., that first-born be eaten for one day and one night) from something (thank-offering), which is itself learned from something else (i.e., peace-offerings)? (In sum,) you are not to learn as per the latter version (that of R. Yossi), but as per the former version, viz.: \"And their flesh (that of first-born) shall be for you, etc.\" Scripture hereby comes to liken first-born to breast and shoulder of peace-offerings — Just as breast and shoulder of peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so, first-born is eaten for two days and one night. What, then, is the intent of (the redundant) \"for you shall it be\"? To include a blemished first-born as reverting to the Cohein, something which was not spelled out in the all of the Torah. R. Elazar says: (A first-born may be eaten) for two days and one night. You say for two days and one night, but perhaps it is for a day and a night? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:20) \"Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it (the first-born), year in year,\" which implies that it may be eaten for two days and one night (i.e., the last day of the preceding year and the first day of the next year and the intervening night). (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) \"All the terumah of the holy things, which the children of Israel will separate\": There are sections which generalize in the beginning and specify at the end; (others) which specify in the beginning and generalize at the end; and this one generalizes in the beginning (18:8) and generalizes at the end, (here, 18:19), and specifies in the middle. \"have I given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you as an everlasting statute\": that it continue for all the succeeding generations. \"It is a covenant of salt forever before the L-rd\": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with something (salt), which preserves, and which, furthermore, preserves other things."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:20) \"And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit, and you will not have a portion in their midst. I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of Israel.\": Why is (all of) this stated? Because it is written (Bamidbar 26:53) \"To these shall the land be apportioned,\" I would think that all are included — Cohanim, Levites, Israelites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtum (those of uncertain sex) and androgynous (hermaphrodites); it is, therefore, written: \"And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit\" — This excludes (from inheritance) Cohanim.\" (Ibid. 23) \"And in the midst of the children of Israel, they (the Levites) shall not inherit an inheritance\" — This excludes Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) \"By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit\" — This excludes bondsmen and proselytes (Ibid. 54) \"A man, according to his numbers shall his inheritance be given\" — This excludes tumtum and androgynous. (Ibid. 18:20) \"And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you will not inherit\" — in the division of the land. \"and you will not have a portion in their midst\" — (\"a portion\") of the spoils. \"I am your portion and your inheritance\" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink. An analogy: A king gave gifts to (all of) his sons except one, saying to him: My son, I gave you a gift. At My table you eat and at My table you drink. And thus is it written (Vayikra 6:10) \"Their portion have I given to them from My fire-offerings.\" (Devarim 18:1) \"The fire-offering of the L-rd and His inheritance shall they eat.\" Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to the Cohanim, twelve in the sanctuary and twelve in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem.) Twelve in the sanctuary: sin-offering, guilt-offering, the remnant of the log of oil of the leper, the remnant of the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, the remnant of meal-offerings, the terumah of the thank-offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14), the terumah of breast and thigh, the shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite.",
            " Twelve in the borders: Terumah, terumath ma'aser, challah, bikkurim, the first of the shearing, the gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw), the first-born of man and the first-born of a clean beast, the firstling of an ass, charamim (renunciation of one's property), an (unredeemed) field of holding, and the theft of (i.e., what is stolen from) a proselyte (viz. Bamidbar 5:8). All these twenty-four gifts were given to the Cohanim, aside from terumah-related debts. The day when a covenant was forged with Aaron with the twenty-four gifts was a day of great joy to him. R. Yishmael says: As per the folk-proverb \"My cow's leg was broken for my good.\" For Aaron's good did Korach come and contest the priesthood. An analogy: A king had a retainer to whom he gave a field as a gift, without recording, sealing and registering (the transaction [see above]) — wherefore, this section is juxtaposed with that of Korach. R. Elazar Hakappar says: Whence is it derived that the Holy One Blessed be He showed our father Yaakov the Temple built and sacrifices being offered, and Cohanim officiating, and the Shechinah reposing (there)? From (Bereshit 28:12) \"And he (Yaakov) dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth, and its top reaching to heaven, and, behold, angels of G-d ascending and descending upon it.\" There is no dream without a portent: \"And he dreamed, and, behold, a ladder standing on the earth\" — the Temple. \"and its top reaching to heaven\" — the offered sacrifices, their scent reaching to heaven. \"and, behold, angels of G-d,\" — the Cohanim ministering, ascending and descending on the ramp. (13) \"And, behold, the L-rd standing on it\" — (Amos 9:1) \"I (Amos) saw the L-rd standing on the altar.\" Beloved are Israel, who, when epitomized, are epitomized as \"Cohanim,\" viz. (Isaiah 61:6) \"And you, Cohanim of the L-rd shall be called; 'ministers of G-d' shall they say of you. The wealth of nations shall you eat, and in their glory shall you vaunt yourselves.\" Beloved are Cohanim, who are epitomized as ministering angels, viz. (Malachi 2:7) \"For the lips of the Cohein shall guard knowledge, and Torah shall they seek from his mouth, for an angel of the L-rd of hosts is he.\" If Torah goes forth from his mouth, he is like the ministering angels. If not, he is like an animal or a beast, which does not recognize its Creator. Beloved is Torah. When David king of Israel asked (a boon of the L-rd), he asked only for Torah, viz. (Psalms 118:68) \"You are good and do good — teach me Your statutes.\" Your goodness engulfs all who enter the world. Let Your goodness engulf me and teach me Your statutes. And it is written (Psalms, Ibid. 117) \"Support me and I will be saved (and I will dwell in Your statutes always\"): That I not learn Torah and forget it, that I not learn and the evil inclination not allow me to review it, that I not rule unclean what is clean or clean what is unclean and come to share in the world to come, that the nations of the land and the families of the earth ask me and I not know how to respond and be shamed before them. And thus is it written (Ibid. 46) \"And I will speak of Your testimonies before kings and I will not be ashamed.\" And (Ibid. 54) \"Songs have Your statutes been to me.\" I might think, in repose. It, therefore, follows \"in the house of my fears, in caves and in entrapments, as in (Ibid. 56:1) \"… when he fled from Saul in the cave.\" And (Ibid. 109:119) \"My soul was always in my hand, and I did not forget Your Torah.\"",
            " But when David learned Torah and grew great (in it), what did he say? (Psalms 139:17) \"And to me, how precious are Your loved ones (i.e., Torah scholars), O G-d! How mighty is their sum!\" And (Ibid. 119:72) \"Better to me is the Torah of Your mouth than thousands of gold and silver.\" For gold and silver take a man out of this world and the next, but Torah brings a man to life in the world to come.",
            " (II Samuel 7:19) \"This is the Torah of man\": We find that there are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingdom. The crown of priesthood was merited by Aaron and he took it. The crown of kingdom was merited by David and he took it. The crown of Torah is left (vacant), so that those who enter the world be given no pretext to say: If the crown of kingdom and the crown of priesthood were left (vacant), I would merit them and take them. The crown of Torah is left (vacant) for all who enter the world. For whoever merits it, I account it to him as if all three were left (vacant) to him and he merits all of them. And whoever does not merit it, I account it to him as if all three were left (vacant) for him and he did not merit any one of them. And if you would ask: Which is the greatest of all? R. Shimon b. Elazar was wont to say: Who is greater, the crowner or the king? Certainly, the crowner. The maker of officers or the officers? Certainly, the maker of officers. All that inheres in these two crowns, comes through the power of Torah. And thus is it written (Proverbs 8:15-16) \"Through me (Torah) do kings reign … Through me do princes rule.\" And, (in reversion to \"This is the Torah of man\"), (Koheleth 12:13) \"The end of the matter, all has been heard. Fear G-d and do His mitzvoth. For this (Torah) is all of man.\"",
            " Greater is the covenant forged with Aaron than that forged with David. Aaron merited (priesthood) for his sons — whether righteous or wicked, and David merited (kingdom only) for the righteous, but not for the wicked, viz. (Psalms 132:12) \"If your children will keep My covenant … (they will sit on the throne for you.\") (Bamidbar 18:19) \"It is a covenant of salt … (21) and to the sons of Levi.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that just as the covenant is forged with the priesthood, so, is it forged with the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated at Mount Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated with joy, so, that of the Levites, as it is written \"and to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given, etc.\" \"Behold\" connotes joy, as in (Shemot 5:14) \"And, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"in exchange for their service\": All the mitzvoth of the priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-rd and given to the Cohanim; and these (the mitzvoth of the Levites), \"in exchange for their services of the tent of meeting.\" These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This, too, was acquired by the land and given to the Levites, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30) \"And all the tithe of the land … is the L-rd's; it is holy to the L-rd.\" \"And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance\": Just as an inheritance does not change from its place, so, first tithe, (which is given to the Levite), does not change from its place, (unlike second tithe, which in the third and sixth years converts to poor-tithe.) \"in exchange for the service which they perform\": If he serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he does not. (Ibid. 22) \"And the children of Israel shall no more draw near\": the exhortation. \"to bear sin, to die\": the punishment (at the hands of Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) \"And the Levite shall serve — he\": Why is this written? From \"in exchange for their service\" I might understand, if he wishes, he serves, and if he does not wish, he does not serve; it is, therefore, written \"And the Levite shall serve — he\" — perforce. Variantly: Why is this written? From \"And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel (in exchange for their service, etc.\") This tells me only (that they must serve) only in the years that the tithes obtain. Whence do I derive (that they must also serve) on shemitoth and yovloth, (when the tithes do not obtain)? From \"And the Levite shall serve — he\" (in any event). R. Nathan says: If no Levite were there, I might think that a Cohein may serve. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the priestly service), where Levites are not kasher, Cohanim are kasher, then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical service), where Levites are kasher, how much more so should Cohanim be kasher! It is, therefore, written \"And the Levite shall serve — he.\" \"and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of not guarding property)\": And others (the Israelites, who, [being unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will not bear their (the Levites') sin. This is to say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Levites, but the Cohanim, (who enter where they should not), do bear their (the Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written \"and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of improper guarding),\" and not the Israelites or the Cohanim (who, as a result, enter where they should not.) \"a statute forever for your generations\": It obtains for all succeeding generations. And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance\": Why is this written? For, since it is written (Ibid. 26:53) \"To these shall the land be apportioned,\" I would think that the Levites, too, are included; it is, therefore, written \"And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance.\" (Ibid. 24) \"For the tithe of the children of Israel which they set apart for the L-rd as terumah\": Scripture refers to it as terumah until he separates terumath ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches that if he wishes to make it terumah for other (untithed) produce, he may do so. \"have I given to the Levites as an inheritance\": Why is this written? Because it is written \"And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel in exchange for the service, etc.\", I would think (that first-tithe is given to the Levites) only when the Temple, (in which service is performed), exists. Whence do I derive (that it is given) even when the Temple does not exist? From \"as an inheritance.\" Just as \"inheritance\" obtains whether or not the Temple exists, so, first-tithe. \"Therefore, I have said to them that in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance\": Why is this written? Is it not already written (23) \"And in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance\"? I might think that this applies only at the time of the apportionment of the land; but after the apportionment each tribe sets aside from its portion (a parcel of land for Levi). It is, therefore, written \"Therefore, I have said, etc.\" Variantly: \"Therefore, I have said\": Why is this written? Because it is written (Devarim 7:1) \"And He will cast out many nations from before you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.\", but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are not mentioned, (so that we might think that when they are conquered, Levi can have inheritance in their land); it is, therefore, written \"Therefore, I have said, etc.\" — forever (are they not to have inheritance). Variantly: (It is written) to exhort beth-din to this end (of their not receiving inheritance)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:26) \"And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe (ma'aser) that I have given to you from their inheritance, (then you shall separate from it the terumah of the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.\") Why is this written? To teach that (Ibid. 21) \"And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe\" speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce (of the land, and not of [one-tenth of] the land itself.) You say, the produce, but perhaps (the reference is to) the land (itself)! It is, therefore, written (26) \"And to the Levites you shall speak and you shall say to them (… that I have given to you from them in their inheritance\"). \"that I have given to you from them in their inheritance\": Because they have not been given a portion in the land, there has been given to them one-tenth of the produce. \"then you shall separate from it\": From one kind (of produce) for its kind, and not from one kind for a different kind, and not from what is rooted for what is unrooted, and not from what is unrooted for what is rooted, and not from the new (crop) for the old, and not from the old for the new. And whence is it derived that one is not to take terumah from produce of the land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce outside the land or from produce outside the land for produce of the land? From (Vayikra 27:30) \"And all the tithe of the land, etc.)\" Variantly: \"from it\": This is \"extra\" (mufneh) for formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ) viz.: It is written here \"from it,\" and, in respect to the Paschal lamb, (Shemot 12:9) (\"Do not eat) from it, etc.\" Just as re \"with it\" mentioned here (in respect to ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, re \"with it\" mentioned in respect to Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is forbidden to a mourner."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:27) \"And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit\": R. Yishmael says: When is your terumah accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor? When you have taken it as prescribed (i.e., a kind for its kind, new for new, etc. [see above]). If you have not taken it as prescribed, it is not thus accounted for you. Variantly: \"And your (the Levites') terumah (terumath ma'aser) will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor\" (terumah gedolah). Now what do we learn from terumah (gedolah) to terumath ma'aser? It (terumah gedolah) comes (apparently) to teach (something), and it ends up being learned (i.e.,) Just as terumath ma'aser is obligatory, so, terumah (gedolah) is obligatory. Abba Eliezer b. Gomel says: Scripture comes to teach you that just as terumah (gedolah) may be taken by estimate and by thought (i.e., without actually handling it), so, terumath ma'aser may be taken by estimate and by thought. \"as corn from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the pit\": Why is this stated? From (26) \"then you shall separate from it,\" I might think that he could take ears (of grain as terumah) for grain; grapes, for wine; and olives, for oil; it is, therefore, written \"as corn from the threshing floor,\" i.e., (he may take) from what is processed — whence they ruled; (He may take terumah:) from grain, from the time that it (i.e., its pile) has been evened; from wine, from the time that it is skimmed; from oil, from the time that it has dripped down into the trough. (Ibid. 28) \"Thus shall you, too, separate the terumah of the L-rd\": Why is this written? From (26) \"And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel, etc.\", (I would say:) The children of Israel give ma'aser to the Levites, but the Cohanim do not give ma'aser to the Levites. And since they do not give ma'aser to the Levites, I might think that they could eat it (the produce) tevel (i.e., untithed); it is, therefore, written: \"thus shall you separate, you (the Cohanim), too, the terumah of the L-rd.\" (i.e., the Cohanim separate terumah, and ma'aser, and terumath ma'aser which reverts to them.) R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed, for if challah, which does not obtain with all produce (i.e., with all the varieties of grain), obtains with the produce of Cohanim, then ma'aser, which does obtain with all produce, how much more so should it obtain with all the produce of Cohanim! What, then, is the intent of \"Thus shall you separate, you, too\"? I might think that only the ma'aser of an Israelite (is subject to terumath ma'aser). Whence do I derive the (same for) their (the Levites') own tithe (i.e., the tithe that they separate from what is theirs)? It is, therefore, written \"Thus shall you separate, you, (the Levites,) too.\" (Ibid. 29) \"From all of your gifts, etc.\" Scripture hereby teaches that ma'aser obtains with all (produce [see above]) — whence you rule to terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser), viz.: If ma'aser, the \"lighter,\" (not being subject to the death penalty), obtains with all produce), then terumah, the \"graver,\" (being subject to the death penalty, [viz. Vayikra 22:9]), how much more so does it obtain with all (produce [of first tithe])! Variantly: If ma'aser (second tithe), which does not obtain in the third and sixth year (of shemitah, [being replaced by poor-tithe]), obtains with all (produce), then terumah, the graver, how much more so should it obtain with all (produce [of second tithe])! Issi b. Menachem says: If ma'aser (second tithe), which comes only as an incentive to fear and to learning (viz. Devarim 14:23), obtains with all (produce), how much more so does it obtain with the \"graver,\" terumah! (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"And you shall give of it the terumah of the L-rd to Aaron the Cohein\": Just as Aaron was a chaver (a Torah scholar, so the (other) Cohanim (to receive the priestly gifts, should be chaverim) — whence it was ruled: Priestly gifts should be given only to a chaver. (Ibid. 29) \"From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd. From all of its best (shall you separate) its hallowed part from it.\" Is Scripture here speaking of terumah gedolah or of terumath ma'aser? \"from all of your tithes\" (28) speaks of terumath ma'aser. How, then, is \"From all of your gifts shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd\" to be understood? As referring to terumath gedolah. (Devarim 18:4) \"The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him\": This is obligatory. You say it is obligatory, but perhaps it is optional! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 11:29) \"shall you separate all the terumah of the L-rd\" — It is obligatory and not optional. These are the words of R. Yonathan. \"from all of its best, its hallowed part from it.\": So that if it (terumath ma'aser) fell (back) into it (what it was taken from), it \"hallows\" it — whence they ruled: Terumah is \"neutralized\" (from its hallowed state) if it fell into one hundred parts of non-terumah when (it is) one to (that) one hundred. This tells me only of terumah that is (ritually) clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah that is tamei, (that if it fell into a hundred of clean terumah, it is neutralized in such a mixture?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: [Note: The translator, with all his consultation of the commentaries, has not been able to render meaningfully what follows (from here until #122)]"
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 18:30) \"And you shall say to them (the Levites): When you separate its best part from it, (then it [i.e., what remains]) shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress.\"): This is an exhortation to the Levites to take (terumath ma'aser) only from its choicest. \"then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the winepress\": Why is this stated? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid. 27]) Because it is written (27) \"And your terumah will be accounted for you, etc.\", I might think that since Scripture refers to it (first tithe) as \"terumah,\" (viz. Ibid. 24), it retains its holiness forever; it is, therefore, written \"then it shall be reckoned to the Levites as produce of the threshing floor and as produce of the wine press\" — Just as with the produce of the threshing floor, one separates terumah, and what remains is chullin (non-terumah), so, with first tithe, he separates terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser) and what remains is chullin. (Ibid. 31) \"And you may eat it in every place\": even in a cemetery. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since \"terumah\" (of a Cohein) is called \"terumah,\" and first tithe is called \"terumah,\" then if I have learned that terumah (of a Cohein) is to be eaten only in a (ritually) clean place, so, first tithe; it is, therefore, written \"And you may eat it in every place\" — even in a cemetery. \"you and your household\": to include an Israelite woman married to a Levite as permitted to depute (a messenger) to take terumah (i.e., terumath ma'aser, from her husband's first tithe). — But perhaps (this permits her) only to eat it! — Would you say that? It follows otherwise, viz.: If she (a Cohein's wife) eats the \"graver\" — terumah, how much more so should (a Levite's wife) eat the \"lighter\" — ma'aser! It must mean, then, that an Israelite woman (married to a Levite) is permitted to be deputed to take terumah. (Ibid. 31) \"For it is payment to you, in exchange for your service in the tent of meeting.\": If he serves, he takes; if he does not serve, he does not take — whence it was ruled: If a Levite took upon himself every Levitical service except one, he has no portion in the Leviate. (Ibid. 32) \"And you shall not bear sin because of it\": And whence is it derived that if he did not separate (for terumath ma'aser) its choicest part, he does bear sin? From \"And you shall not bear sin because of it when you separate its best part from it.\" This tells me only of terumath ma'aser (i.e., what the Levi separates for the Cohein). Whence do I derive (the same for) terumah gedolah (i.e., what the Israelite separates for the Cohein)? From (Ibid.) \"And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die.\" This is an exhortation to both the Levites and the Israelites."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:1-2) \"And the L-rd spoke to Aaron and to Moses saying: This is the statute of the Torah, which the L-rd has commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and let them take unto you a red heifer, complete, which does not have a blemish, upon which a yoke has not come.\" There are sections (of the Torah), which are general in the beginning and particular at the end, and (others), which are particular in the beginning and general at the end: (Shemot 19:3) \"Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel\" — particular; (Ibid. 6) \"These are the things, etc.\" — general. (Ibid. 12:43) \"This is the statute of the Pesach\" — general; (Ibid.) \"Every stranger shall not eat of it\" — particular. (Bamidbar 19:2) \"This is the statute of the Torah\" — general; (Ibid.) \"and let them take for you a red heifer, complete\" — particular. General-Particular. (The rule is:) There exists in the general only what is found in the particular. R. Eliezer says: It is written here \"statute\" and (relative to the Yom Kippur service, Vayikra 16:34) \"statute.\" Just as there, (the Cohein ministers) in the white vestments; here, too, in the white vestments. R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said \"what my hands have ministered.\" \"and let them take\": from the Temple treasury. \"unto you\": that you be appointed over it. And just as Moses was appointed over it, so, was Aaron. Similarly, in respect to the oil for lighting, (Shemot 21:20) \"and let them take unto you\" — that you be appointed over it. \"a red heifer (parah)\": R. Eliezer says: \"eglah\" signifies of the first year; \"parah\" signifies of the second year. The sages say: \"eglah\" — of the second year; \"parah\" — of the third or fourth year. R. Meir says: One of the fifth year, too, is valid. An old one is valid, but it is not waited for lest it sprout black hairs and become unfit. \"parah\": I understand black or white; it is, therefore, written \"red.\" \"whole\": in redness or in (absence of) blemishes? \"which does not have a blemish\" accounts for blemishes. How, then, am I to understand \"whole\"? That it be \"whole\" in redness. \"which does not have a blemish\": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work (having been done with them), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! — No, this may be true of offerings, which must be processed (by the Cohein) in a state of cleanliness, wherefore a blemish invalidates them, as opposed to the heifer, which may be processed in a state of tumah (i.e., when the Cohein is a tvul yom), wherefore a blemish would not invalidate it. (So that the verse is needed to tell us otherwise.) — (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) the Paschal lamb, which though it may be processed in a state of tumah, a blemish invalidates it, and this would indicate of the heifer that even though it is processed in tumah, a blemish invalidates it. (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, this may be true of the Paschal lamb, which must be sacrificed at a fixed time, wherefore it is invalidated by a blemish, as opposed to the heifer, which, not having a fixed time (for its processing), should not be invalidated by a blemish. It must, therefore, (to tell us otherwise) be written \"which does not have a blemish.\" Issi b. Akiva says: \"which does not have a blemish\": Why need this be stated? Even if it were not stated, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by black or white (hairs), are invalidated by a blemish, then the heifer, which is invalidated by black or white, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish\"! If I know this a fortiori, why need it be stated \"which does not have a blemish\"? To exclude (from invalidation by a blemish) the heifer of the broken neck (eglah arufah [viz. Devarim 21:4]). For it would follow (if not for this verse) that blemishes should invalidate the eglah arufah, viz.: If offerings, which are not invalidated by work, are invalidated by a blemish, then eglah arufah, which is invalidated by work, how much more so should it be invalidated by a blemish! It is, therefore, written (in respect to the red heifer), \"which does not have a blemish\" — It (the red heifer) is invalidated by a blemish, but the eglah arufah is not invalidated by a blemish. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: If the sin-offering of a bird, whose offerers must be tahor, is not invalidated by a blemish, then the red heifer, whose processors may be tamei (tvul yom), how much more so should it not be invalidated by a blemish! (The verse, then, is needed to tell us that it is invalidated by a blemish.) — No, this may be true of the sin-offering of a bird, which is valid if either male or female, as opposed to a heifer, (where only a female is valid.) Why, then, need it be stated \"which does not have a blemish\"? (lit., \"when there is no blemish in it\") When the blemish is in it (it is invalid), but when it has passed, it is valid. R. Yoshiyah Numithi asked before R. Yehudah b. Betheira: What is a blemish which has passed, in which instance it is valid? And he showed me between his two fingers — when(flesh) protrudes or when it has two tails. \"upon which a yoke has not come\": Scripture speaks of a yoke not in (the time of its) working. And if you would say, a yoke in (the time of its working), would you say that? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, is invalidated by a yoke (in its time of working), then the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should it be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working!) — (No,) this is refuted by the offerings, which are invalidated by a blemish, but not by a yoke (in the time of working), and they would indicate about the red heifer that even though it is invalidated by a blemish, it should not be invalidated by a yoke (in the time of its working). — No, this may be true of offerings, which are not invalidated by black and white hairs, wherefore a yoke does not invalidate them, as opposed to the red heifer, which is invalidated by black and white, wherefore a yoke (in the time of its working) should invalidate them. What, then, is the intent of \"upon which a yoke has not come\"? A yoke not in the time of its working. Whence is it derived that other labors are equated with a yoke (to invalidate the red heifer)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, (viz. Devarim 21:3 \"which has never been worked, which has never pulled under a yoke\"), then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke! — But perhaps it should be transposed, viz.: If (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, other labors were not equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors not be equated with a yoke! It is, therefore, written \"which has never been worked.\" I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been refuted and I have emerged with the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If (in the instance of) the eglah arufah, which is not invalidated by a blemish, other labors are equated with a yoke, then (in the instance of) the red heifer, which is invalidated by a blemish, how much more so should other labors be equated with a yoke!",
            " (Bamidbar 19:3) \"And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein\": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. \"and you shall give it\": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. \"and he shall take it (outside the encampment\"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written \"and he shall take it out\" — alone. \"outside the encampment\": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) \"and he shall slaughter it\": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). \"and he shall slaughter it\": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). \"and he shall slaughter it before him\": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. \"and Elazar the Cohein shall take\": Why is this written? Is it not already written \"And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein\"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) \"shall take of its blood with his finger\": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand. You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand. But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written \"from its blood with his finger.\" Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. \"with his finger\": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand. You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) \"Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc.\" Since \"fingers\" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the \"yemanith\" of the \"yemanith,\" so, all \"fingers\" of the Torah are \"yemanith\" — the most skillful (\"meyumeneth\") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. \"and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting\": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. \"and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting\": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. \"and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting\": Why is this repeated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) \"of its blood with his finger\"? From (Ibid.) \"seven times,\" I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written \"of its blood seven times\" — he returns to the blood seven times. \"seven times\": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since \"sprinklings\" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and \"sprinklings\" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive. It is, therefore, written (here) \"seven times,\" and there (of the inner sprinklings) \"seven times before the L-rd.\" Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:5) \"And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes\": Scripture apprises us about the heifer that preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its burning. — But even without this being stated, I know it a fortiori, viz.: If it (preoccupation) invalidates its slaughtering (see above), should it not invalidate its burning! If I know this a fortiori, what need is there for a verse? Rather, Scripture apprises us that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates it from the time of slaughtering until it becomes ashes. \"And he shall burn the heifer before his eyes, and not the bullocks (that of Yom Kippur, etc.) that are burnt (\"outside the camp\"). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If with the red heifer, which is not processed within (the sanctuary), work invalidates its burning, then the bullocks, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their burning! — No, this may be true of the red heifer, whose slaughtering is invalidated by work, wherefore it invalidates its burning, as opposed to the bullocks that are burnt, whose slaughtering is not invalidated by work, wherefore it should not invalidate their burning! — But let it (i.e., work) invalidate their slaughtering! And this would, indeed, follow, viz.: If bullocks, which are not processed within, work invalidates their slaughtering, then the bullocks that are burnt, which are processed within, how much more so should work invalidate their slaughtering! It is, therefore, written \"then he shall burn the heifer (before his eyes\") and (Ibid. 3) \"and he shall slaughter it before him,\" and not the bullocks that are burned. \"And he shall burn the heifer before his (Elazar's) eyes\": Another burns and Elazar looks on. \"Its skin, and its flesh, and its blood together with its dung\": Just as the dung (remains) in its place, (i.e., it is not removed from the bowels,) so, all (of the others remain) in their place — whence they ruled: Any blood (remaining in his hand) should be returned to its place (i.e., the shechitah site), and if it is not returned, the heifer is invalidated. What does he do? He wipes his hand on the body of the heifer. \"And he shall burn the heifer\": to include bits (leaping from the fire) — whence they ruled: Any amount of flesh must be returned (to the fire); if he does not return it, it (the heifer) is invalidated. Any amount of bone must be returned; if he does not return it, it is not invalidated, (\"bone\" not being mentioned in the verse). If an olive-size (leapt out of the fire), he must return it (to the fire). (And if he returned it, even if a minute amount remained behind, he must return it.) If he does not return it, (the heifer) is invalidated. \"he shall burn\": (We have here an instance of) amplification (\"he shall burn\") after amplification (\"And he shall burn\") in which instance the rule is \"diminution\" — If most of it (and not necessarily all of it) has been consumed, (it is valid). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Yehudah says: (The intent of \"he shall burn\" is that) he shall not diminish the wood (supply). He adds to it bundles of hyssop and bundles of Grecian hyssop in order to increase the (amount of) ashes. (Ibid. 6) \"And the Cohein shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet\": It is written here \"taking,\" and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 18) \"taking.\" Just as \"taking\" here is three (species), so, \"taking\" there, (although only \"hyssop\" is mentioned there.) \"wood\": This implies any kind of wood. It is, therefore, written \"cedar\": This (alone) implies even a branch. It is, therefore, written \"wood.\" How so? A chip of cedar wood. \"hyssop\": Not \"Grecian\" or \"Kochalith\" or \"Desert\" or \"Roman\" (hyssop) or any other hyssop which has an epithet. \"ushni tola'ath\": i.e., whose variant (\"shniyatho\" [something called by a \"variant\" name]) is tola'ath (scarlet). \"and he shall cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer\": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written \"the heifer\" (i.e., when it is still recognizable as a heifer.) If \"the heifer,\" I might think (that he casts it in) even when it has not been burned. It is, therefore, written \"into the midst of the burning.\" How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when the flames have caught on to most of it. R. Akiva says: \"the burning\": I might think (that he casts it in) when the heifer has already been reduced to ashes; it is, therefore, written \"the heifer.\" If \"the heifer,\" I might think if he splits it open and places it into its midst; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall cast it into the burning of the heifer.\" How is this to be reconciled? (He casts it in) when it has split open (of itself because of the fire.) \"And the Cohein shall wash his garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water\": Scripture hereby apprises us of the caster of the hyssop that he imparts tumah to garments. \"and then he shall come to the encampment\": Just as here, he (the caster of the hyssop) is forbidden to come to the encampment (before he cleanses himself), so, there, he (the burner and the gatherer of the ashes) is forbidden to come to the encampment. \"and the Cohein shall be unclean until the evening\": Just as here (he is unclean) until the evening, so, there, he (the burner of the bullock and the he-goat of Yom Kippur, [viz. Vayikra 16:26]), (he is unclean) until the evening. (Ibid. 8) \"And he who burns it shall wash his garments\": Scripture hereby apprises us of the burner of the heifer that he imparts tumah to garments. Even without the verse, I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If the caster of the hyssop imparts tumah to his garments, how much more so the burner of the heifer! Why, then, do I need the verse? Scripture hereby apprises us of those who occupy themselves with the heifer from beginning to end that they require the washing of garments and bathing of the body and the going down of the sun (to be cleansed). \"And he who burns it shall wash his garments\": and not plague-garments (i.e., the garments of the one who burns the clothes of the leper or of one afflicted with plague do not become unclean.) For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If the heifer, which does not impart tumah by contact, its burning imparts tumah to garments, then plague-garments, which do impart tumah by contact, how much more so should their burner impart tumah to garments! It is, therefore, written \"And he who burns it shall wash his garments,\" and not plague-garments. \"he shall wash his garments with water and he shall bathe his flesh in water\": \"in water\" — twice. What is the intent of this? For it would follow: Since a man requires immersion and vessels require immersion, then just as a man immerses in (an amount of water) that is sufficient for him, i.e., forty sa'ah), so vessels are immersed in a (smaller amount of water) sufficient for them. It is, therefore, written \"in water\" twice. Where man is immersed (i.e., forty sa'ah), there hands (for ritual purposes) and vessels are immersed. (Ibid. 9) \"And a man who is clean shall gather the ashes\": Because we find that all of the processing of the heifer is by a Cohein, I might think that the gathering of the ashes, too, is by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written \"And a man who is clean\" — whence we are apprised that the gathering of the ashes is kasher through any man. \"And a man who is clean\" — to exclude a minor. (\"a man\" then) implies that both a minor and a woman are excluded; it is, therefore, written \"who is clean\" — to include (as kasher) a woman. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: \"And a man who is clean\" — to include a zar (a non-Cohein). \"clean\" — to validate a woman. (\"clean\" then) implies that both a woman and a minor are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"and he shall place it outside the encampment\": Scripture speaks only of someone who has the \"mind\" to \"place\" (with intent, excluding a minor, who does not have the mind to do so.) \"a man who is clean\": clean vis-à-vis ma'aser, and tamei vis-à-vis terumah. And elsewhere (Ibid. 18) it is written \"And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water.\" R. Akiva asks: Why is this (\"clean man\") written? Even if it were not written, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the gatherer (of the ashes) must be clean, how much more so the sprinkler! What, then, is the intent of \"a clean man\"? One who has left the category of \"tumah.\" And who is that? One who immersed in the daytime (and whose cleanliness is consummated in the evening). And it is written elsewhere (Ibid. 19) \"clean.\" Just as there, tamei for terumah and \"clean\" for ma'aser, so \"clean\" here (Ibid. 9), tamei for terumah and clean for ma'aser. \"the ashes of the heifer\": and not the brands — whence they ruled: A brand which has ash is crushed and one which does not have ash is discarded. A bone, in any event, will be crushed. \"outside the encampment\": in the Mount of Olives — whence they ruled: It is divided into three parts: one for the chel (a place within the fortification of the Temple); one for the Mount of Olives; one to be divided among all the priestly watches. \"in a clean place\": its surroundings must be clean — whence R. Elazar Hakapper said: A vessel containing the cleansing (ashes of the red heifer), with an air-tight lid in the tent of a dead man is tamei, it being written \"in a clean place.\" And this is not a clean place. \"And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping for waters of sprinkling.\" What is the intent of this? I might think that \"work\" (see above) is invalidated only vis-à-vis the heifer. Whence do I derive (the same for) the water (that is added to the ashes)? From \"And it shall be … in keeping for waters of sprinkling\" (which implies that \"work\" is to be abstained from only when they are being made waters of sprinkling.) — But perhaps (the stricture against \"work\" obtains even after they have been sanctified as waters of sprinkling. — It is, therefore, written \"for (i.e., to make them) waters of sprinkling.\" And they are already waters of sprinkling. If a cow drank of the cleansing waters, its flesh is tamei (if it drank) within twenty-four hours (of being slaughtered). R. Yehudah says it (the water) is nullified in its intestines, it being written \"And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping\" (i.e., once it is no longer \"in keeping,\" it does not confer tumah upon what comes in contact with it.) This question (\"tahor or tamei\"?) was asked before thirty-two elders and they ruled its flesh \"tahor.\" This is one of the things that R. Yossi Haglili discussed with R. Akiva, (R. Yossi holding \"tahor,\" and R. Akiva, \"tamei\"), and R. Akiva dismissed him, (R. Yossi being unable to substantiate his view.) Afterwards, R. Yossi found substantiation for his view, and asked R. Akiva: May I return? R. Akiva: Shall I allow everyone to return, and not you because your name is \"Yossi Haglili\"? R. Yossi (presenting his substantiation): It is written \"And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping.\" It is only when they are \"in keeping\" that they are considered sprinkling waters (and confer tumah [see above].) R. Tarfon said (on Daniel 8:4) \"I saw the ram butting westward, northward, and southward. And no beast could withstand him, and there was none to deliver from his power. He did as he willed and grew great.\" This (\"the ram\") is R. Akiva. (Ibid. 5) \"As I looked on, a he-goat came from the west, passing over the entire earth without touching the ground. And the goat had a beetling horn between its eyes\": This is R. Yossi Haglili and his response. (6) \"And he came up to the two-horned ram that I saw standing before the water course, and he charged at him full force. (7) And I saw him reach the ram and rage at him, and he struck the ram and broke his two horns\" — R. Akiva and Shimon b. Naness — \"and the ram\" — R. Akiva — \"was powerless to withstand him. And he\" — R. Yossi Haglili — \"cast him to the ground and trampled him. And there were none\" — the thirty-two elders — \"to rescue him from his hand.\"",
            " (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"It (the heifer) is a sin-offering.\": We are hereby apprised that it is subject to me'ilah (abuse of what is sacred, as a sin-offering is). \"it\": It (the heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but not its ashes. Variantly: \"It is a sin-offering\": We are hereby apprised that if it is not slaughtered to its specific end, it is unfit. Variantly: \"It is a sin-offering\": We are hereby apprised that it (like a sin-offering) is not burned at night as it is in the daytime. If \"it is a sin-offering,\" I might think that it is voided by being kept overnight; it is, therefore, written \"And it shall be for the congregation of the children of Israel in keeping.\" We are hereby apprised that it \"keeps\" day after day and year after year. (Ibid. 10) \"And he who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his garments\": We are hereby taught about the gatherer of the heifer's ashes that he confers tumah upon his clothing. — But even without the verse, I would know it a fortiori, viz.: If the burner (of the heifer) confers tumah upon his clothing, how much more so, the gatherer (of its ashes)! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) The verse, rather, tells us that he who gathers the ashes becomes tamei (even) by hesset (i.e., merely by moving them, even though he does not touch them.) \"And it shall be for the children of Israel and for the sojourner who dwells in their midst\": Because the command is to Israel, the proselytes must be (explicitly) included. \"as an everlasting statute\": that it obtain for succeeding generations."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:11) \"One who touches the dead body of any man shall be unclean for seven days.\" Scripture hereby teaches about a dead body that it confers tumah by contact. — But even without a verse it follows a fortiori, viz.: If it confers tumah in a tent, how much more so by contact! Why, then, is the verse needed? To include an eight-month birth (who died). This would include both an eight-month birth and his blood; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) \"the soul (i.e., the body) of a man\" — to exclude his blood (as conferring tumah). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: (It is written) \"all the soul of a man\" — to include his blood. \"then he shall be tamei for seven days\": Scripture hereby apprises us that a dead body confers tumah for seven days (unlike other instances of contact tumah, which obtain for one day only). (Ibid. 12) \"He shall be cleansed with it\": Why \"with it\"? (i.e., \"it\" seems superfluous). (The thrust of \"it\" is) with ashes that were processed as prescribed. \"on the third day and on the seventh day\": Scripture hereby apprises us that one who is tamei by a dead body must be sprinkled on, on the third day and the seventh day. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that if he is sprinkled on, on the third day, he is clean on the seventh day, and if not, he is not clean on the seventh day. It is, therefore, written \"And if he is not cleansed on the third day, he shall not be clean on the seventh day.\" — But still, perhaps the meaning is: Why is he not clean on the seventh day, because he was not besprinkled on the seventh day, but if he were besprinkled on the third day, then he is clean on the seventh day! It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) \"and he shall cleanse him on the seventh day.\" Scripture repeats it to void it (otherwise). \"And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day\": Why is this written? (i.e., it follows from what precedes.) Because it is written (Ibid. 20) \"And a man if he become tamei and he has not been sprinkled upon, etc.\", does Scripture make him liable to kareth because of the defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things or because he has not been sprinkled upon? It is, therefore, written \"And if he is not cleansed on the third day, then he shall not be clean on the seventh day.\" His punishment is not being clean, and not kareth. (Ibid. 13) \"Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man\": As heretofore stated, to exclude an eight-month birth. \"that shall die\": Scripture hereby apprises us that he does not confer tumah until he dies. From here, you reason to sheretz (a creeping thing), viz.: If the \"graver,\" a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man (actually) dies, then the \"lighter,\" a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! Or, transpose it, viz.: If sheretz, the \"lighter,\" confers tumah while convulsing, then a man, the \"graver\" how much more so should he confer tumah even while convulsing (and not actually dead)! It is, therefore, written \"Everyone who touches a dead body in the soul of a man that shall die.\" Why need \"that shall die\" be written? Why is it written? To apprise us that he does not confer tumah until he (actually) dies. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed. The transposition has been nullified and the original a fortiori argument remains, viz.: If the \"graver,\" a dead body, does not confer tumah until the man actually dies, then the \"lighter,\" a sheretz, how much more so should it not confer tumah until it (actually) dies! \"and he not be cleansed\": Rebbi says: and he not be cleansed by blood (i.e., if he has not brought his required offering, and enters the sanctuary, e.g., in the instance of a zav or a leper, who require an offering for their purification). You say, if he has not been cleansed by blood, but perhaps (the meaning is that) he has not been cleansed by the waters (of the red heifer)! (This is not so, for) \"the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him\" already speaks of the waters. How, then, am I to understand \"and he not be cleansed\"? (As) he will not be cleansed by blood,\" to include one lacking atonement, (as in the above instance). \"and that soul shall be cut off': Why is this written (here)? Is it not written below? (viz. Ibid. 20). But because it is written (there) \"The sanctuary (\"mikdash,\" [i.e., the Temple]) of the L-rd he has defiled,\" this tells me only of the mikdash. Whence do I derive (the same for) the mishkan (i.e., the tabernacle of the desert)? From (Ibid. 13) \"The tabernacle (\"mishkan\") of the L-rd he has defiled.\" \"and that soul shall be cut off\": And elsewhere (in the same connection [Vayikra 15:31]) \"that they not die in their tumah.\" Why the difference (in terminology)? To teach that \"kareth\" and \"death\" (in this regard) are one and the same. \"tamei shall he be\": to include other varieties of tumah (e.g., sheretz and zav). These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: It (the verse) is not needed (for this teaching.) It is already written (Vayikra, Ibid.) \"And you shall separate the children of Israel from their tumah, that they not die in their tumah by making tamei My mishkan which is in their midst.\" Tumah through a dead body was in the category (of all the varieties of tumah), and Scripture isolated it (here for special mention), and made it liable to death and to the bringing of an offering (for unwitting transgression), to teach about the other varieties of tumah (in this connection) that they are liable to death and to the bringing of an offering. How, then, am I to understand \"tamei shall he be\"? Because it is written \"for the waters of sprinkling have not been sprinkled upon him,\" I might think (that the intent is) if they had not been sprinkled upon him at all. Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled (on the third day), but did not repeat (on the seventh day)? From \"tamei shall he be.\" Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he repeated, but he did not immerse? From \"His tumah is upon him.\" Whence do I derive the same for (an instance where) he sprinkled and he immersed, but did not wait for \"his sun to set\"? From \"His tumah is yet upon him.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:14) \"This is the Torah: A man if he die in a tent — all that enter the tent and all that is in the tent shall be tamei seven days.\" Scripture hereby comes to teach us a new tumah, that a dead man effects tent-uncleanliness. Whence do we derive that (the same obtains if he died) outside the tent (and were brought into it)? From \"This is the Torah\" (i.e., there is one law for both.) These are the words of Issi b. Akavya. R. Yishmael said (This derivation) is not needed. If when he had not been tamei (before), he effects tent-uncleanliness, how much more so, when he had been tamei (before, i.e., when he died outside the tent.) Whence do we derive that all things which \"tent\" are considered a tent (for purposes of tent-uncleanliness, and not only a flaxen tent)? R. Yitzchak said: If vis-à-vis a leper, the \"lighter\" (form of tumah), all things that \"tent\" (and not only flax) are considered tents, then vis-à-vis a dead man, the \"graver\" (form of tumah), how much more so should all things that \"tent\" be considered tents. \"all that enter the tent\": partially. \"and all that is in the tent\": entirely. Why need this be said? If one that enters partially is tamei, how much more so one who is in it entirely. R. Achi phrases it otherwise, viz.: If one who enters the tent is tamei, how much more so one who is already in it! What, then, is the intent of \"all that is in the tent\"? To render the floor of the house until the depths like the house itself (i.e., all that is in that space is tamei.) Everyone who enters the tent from its entrance becomes tamei, but it does not impart tumah from its sides if they are open (i.e., if a man or vessels touch the tent from the outside when it is open, they do not become tamei for seven days.) From here you can reason a fortiori to a grave, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, (being soil per se,) how much more so does it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open. — But perhaps the reverse is the case, viz.: If a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, imparts tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! It is, therefore, written \"all that enter the tent\" — It is only through its entrance that it imparts tumah, but not from all of its sides when it is open. I have reasoned a fortiori and I have transposed (the reasoning). The transposition has been nullified and I return to the original a fortiori argument, viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open, then a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah, how much more so should it not impart tumah from all of its sides when it is open! — But (in that case) it should not (even) impart \"evening tumah\" (viz. Ibid. 22) — Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that it does impart evening tumah), viz.: If one at a third remove from a dead body (as in Ibid. 22) is tamei, how much more so, one (as in our case) who is at a second remove! \"and all that is in the tent shall be tamei\": From this I understand that even straw and twigs and pieces of wood and stones are included; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) \"And a clean man shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and he shall sprinkle it upon the tent and upon all the vessels.\" — But I still would understand to be included vessels of ordure and vessels of earth and vessels of soil. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 31:20) \"And every garment, and every vessel of skin, and every work of goats and every vessel of wood shall you cleanse.\" We learn, then, of four (types of) vessels (that are affected. Whence do we derive (the same for) metal vessels? From (Ibid. 22) \"But the silver and the gold, etc.\" We learn, then, of four types of vessels and of metal vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) earthen vessels? From (Ibid. 19:15) \"And every open (i.e., earthen) vessel, etc.\" We learn, then, of four types of vessels, of metal vessels, and of earthen vessels. — But perhaps the intent is that these (those mentioned in 30:20) and those mentioned here (19:18 \"and upon all the vessels\") are subject to cleansing, and the others (straw and twigs) are subject to tumah in a tent, (but not to cleansing.) It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) \"he shall be tamei for seven days. (12) He shall be cleansed with it.\" Whatever is subject to cleansing is subject to tumah; whatever is not subject to cleansing is not subject to tumah. (Ibid. 15) \"And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is tamei.\" Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. — But perhaps it speaks of all vessels! (This is not so,) for you reason as follows: Four vessels are mentioned vis-à-vis a sheretz (a creeping thing, viz. Vayikra 11:33), and one (type of) vessel was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation (re tumah). And four vessels are mentioned in respect to a dead body, and one was excluded for both attenuation and exacerbation. Just as there, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel (viz. Ibid.), so, here, Scripture speaks of an earthen vessel. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Is Scripture (here) speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is, therefore, written \"an open vessel\" — a vessel that is subject to tumah at (the atmosphere of) its opening (and not at its outer surface). R. Eliezer says; Is Scripture speaking of an earthen vessel or of all vessels? It is unclean\" — forever, there being no cleansing for its tumah. And what is the intent of \"open\"? Any amount. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: From \"there is no tight covering upon it,\" I would understand upon all of it. It is, therefore, written \"upon\" — upon its opening and not upon all of it. \"tight covering\" (\"tzamid pathil\") \"tzamid\": This is the stopper (plugging the inside). \"pathil\": This is the lid. And though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it in (Ibid. 25:3) \"And Israel adhered (\"vayitzamed\") to Ba'al Peor.\" \"And every open vessel whose cover is not fastened upon it is unclean\": Vessels are protected (against tumah) in the tent of the dead with a tzamid pathil, but in (plague-spot) tents, with a covering. \"a tzamid pathil upon it\": and not a vessel upon a tzamid pathil — whence they ruled: A jug which he turned on its mouth and smeared with clay from the sides is susceptible of tumah, it being written \"a tzamid pathil upon it,\" and not \"it upon a tzamid pathil.\" These are the words of R. Eliezer. \"And every open vessel\": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive (the same for) vessels of ordure, vessels of stones, and vessels of soil? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If earthen vessels, which are subject to tumah, protect (what is in them against tumah) by a tzamid pathil, in the tent of the dead, then vessels of ordure, of stones, and of soil, which are not subject to tumah, how much more should they protect (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead! \"It is tamei\" (without a tzamid pathil). Why (the stress on) \"it\"? What protects (against tumah) by a tzamid pathil in the tent of the dead, protects itself by a tzamid pathil (from tumah) through contact with a sheretz."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:16) \"And all who touch on the face of the field\": to include a (dead) fetus in its mother's body. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: to include the top-lid and the frame of the coffin. \"one slain by the sword\": Scripture comes to teach about the sword that it is tamei for seven days, as is one who touches it. We have learned about implements and men (i.e., that the implement and the man who touches it are tamei for seven days.) Whence do we derive (the same for) implements and man and implements (i.e., for implements that touched the man who touched implements)? From (Bamidbar 31:24) \"And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean,\" (garments being \"implements\"), \"one slain by the sword or a dead body\": A dead body is in the category of \"one slain,\" and Scripture removed it from that category (for special mention) to equate what separates from him (i.e., an olive-size of flesh) with the body itself. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: \"dead body\" is not in the category of \"one slain,\" for we find each being mentioned by itself. Whence, then is it derived that what separates from it is equated with the body itself? It is derived a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, of lesser stringency, Scripture equated what separates from it with neveilah itself, then a dead body, of greater stringency, how much more so should what separates from it be equated with the body itself.— No, this may be so with neveilah, which confers \"(until) evening\" tumah, the preponderant (type of tumah), as opposed to a dead body, which confers seven-day tumah, the rarer type. — Would you say that? Where is the tumah itself more stringent? Is it not in a dead body, which confers tumah for seven days, whereas neveilah confers only (until) \"evening tumah\"? Whence is it derived that it (a dead body) confers tumah by being carried? It follows a fortiori, viz. If neveilah, of lesser stringency confers tumah by being carried, how much more so, a dead body, of greater stringency! — But in that case, why do we not say: Just as there (neveilah), the tumah is (only until) evening, then here (dead body), too, the tumah should be (only until) evening? Would you say that? Where touching confers seven-day tumah (i.e., with a dead body), carrying confers seven-day tumah. Where touching confers (until) evening tumah, (i.e., with neveilah), carrying confers (until) evening tumah. R. Meir says: This is not needed (for the derivation). It is written (Bamidbar 31:19) \"Whoever has killed a man, etc.\" Is Scripture speaking of (one who kills him with) something which is susceptible of uncleanliness or even of one who shot him with an arrow and killed him? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"Whoever killed a man or whoever has touched a slain one.\" The killer is being equated with the toucher. Just as the toucher (becomes tamei) by connection (with the object), so, the killer, by connection.",
            " (Bamidbar 19:16) \"or the bone of a man\": This refers to a limb (cut off) from a living person. — But perhaps it refers to a bone the size of a barley-corn? \"and upon him who touched a bone\" already speaks of a bone the size of a barley-corn. How, then, are we to understand \"or the bone of a man\"? As referring to a limb (cut off) from a living person. And two \"bones\" are being spoken of, viz.: \"or the bone of a man\" — a limb (cut off) from a living person \"and upon him who touched a bone\" — a bone the size of a barley-corn.",
            " \"or a dead body or the bone of a man\": Just as a dead body — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, a limb (cut off) from a living person, flesh, sinew, and bones, as in his natural state.",
            " \"or a grave\": This refers to a closed grave (i.e., one in which there is less than a tefach between the body and the lid). — But perhaps it refers to an open grave? Would you say that? It follows (otherwise), viz.: If a tent, which is susceptible of tumah, does not confer tumah on all of its sides when it is open, how much more so, a grave, which is not susceptible of tumah! — But in that case, why do we not say that just as an open tent confers (\"until) evening\" tumah (when touched from the back), so, here, an open grave confers (\"until) evening\" tumah? Would you say that? Whence do we derive this for a tent? From an a fortiori argument (as above), and would you now come to derive something which is itself derived elsewhere? A derivation from a derivation?",
            " (Bamidbar 19:17) \"And they shall take for the unclean one from the earth of the burning (of the heifer) for cleansing.\" R. Shimon said: Is it earth? Is it not ashes? Why does Scripture depart from its usual meaning? To formulate an identity (gezeirah shavah ). It is written here \"earth,\" and, elsewhere, \"earth,\" (Bamidbar 5:17). \"Just as there, \"earth\" on the water, so, here, \"earth\" on the water. And just as there, if the (taking of the) earth preceded the (taking of the) water, it is valid, so, here. Variantly: If it (the ashes) changed its appearance (to that of earth) it is (still) valid."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:17) \"and he shall place upon it living waters\": Scripture speaks of spring waters. You say this, but perhaps the intent is \"waters which are life to the world\" (and all waters are valid)? Though there is no proof (that spring waters are meant), there is support for it in (Bereshit 26:19) \"And the servants of Yitzchak dug in the stream and they found there a well of living waters.\" What is the intent of \"and he shall place upon it (the ashes) living waters which are in a vessel\"? We are hereby taught that all vessels are equated with earthenware vessels. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since water and earth are consecrated in the instance of sotah (viz. Ibid. 5:12), and water and earth are consecrated in the instance of the (red) heifer, then if I have learned about sotah that all vessels were not equated with earthenware vessels, this should be the case too with the heifer; it is, therefore, written \"in a vessel\" (unqualified), whereby we are taught that all vessels were equated with earthenware.",
            " (Bamidbar 19:18) \"And a clean man shall take\": \"Taking\" is written here, and elsewhere (Ibid. 5) \"Just as taking there involves three (objects), so, \"taking\" here. \"hyssop\": and not Greek hyssop, and not Kochalith hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop — and not any hyssop designated by an epithet."
        ],
        [
            " (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).",
            " (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.\"",
            " (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.",
            " (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.",
            "\"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."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 19:22) \"And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become unclean.\": What is the intent of this? In (Ibid. 10) \"one slain by the sword\" Scripture teaches us about the sword that it is tamei for seven days and that one who touches it becomes tamei for seven days — We have thus learned about vessels (the sword) and the man (who touches it). Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels, man, and vessels (that the man touches)? From (Ibid. 31:24) \"And you shall wash your garments (\"vessels\" touched by man). We have thus learned vessels, man, and vessels. Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels and vessels (touched by them)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touch a man who touched vessels which touched a dead body are tamei, how much more so vessels which touch vessels! Whence do we derive (the same for) vessels which touch a man (who touched a dead body)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which touched a man who touched vessels (which touched a dead body) are tamei, how much more so vessels which touched a man (who touched a dead body)! — But perhaps a man should contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days? And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If vessels which are not rendered tamei by the bed or the seat (of a dead man), contract tumah from a dead body to render a man (who touched them) unclean for seven days, how much more so should a man, who is rendered tamei by bed or seat, contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days! It is, therefore, written \"and the soul that touches him (who touched a dead body) shall be unclean until the evening.\" He is rendered tamei until the evening, and he does not contract tumah from a dead body to render his neighbor (who touches him) tamei for seven days. — But perhaps (such a man) should render one who moves him [heset] (even without touching him) tamei. And it would thus follow a fortiori, viz.: If neveilah, the less stringent, renders one tamei by heset, how much more so should the more stringent, one who has become tamei through a dead body, render another tamei by heset! It is, therefore, written \"And all that the unclean one (who touched a dead body) touches shall become tamei\" — and he does not render tamei by heset."
        ],
        [
            "(Bamidbar 25:1) \"And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. \"sitting\" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] \"And the people sat down to eat and to drink,\" and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] \"And they sat down to eat bread.\" R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from. It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) \"Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you\" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc.\" Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west. To wit (Shemot 6:12) \"Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc.\" — (Shemot 6:13) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel.\" What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) \"And they will listen to you, etc.\" Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) \"And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry\" — (Vayikra 21:10) \"And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers.\" What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life. Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of \"And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc.\" and \"And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc.\" Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) \"You are not my people\" — (Hoshea 2:1) \"And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc.\" What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: \"Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah.\" This is the intent of \"for you are not My people, etc.\" and \"And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc.\" Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) \"Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d\" — (Ibid. 2) \"Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d.\" What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: \"Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province.\" This is the intent of \"Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d\" and \"Return, O Israel, etc.\"",
            " Variantly: \"And Israel sat in Shittim\": in the place of sitoth (\"straying\" [from the L-rd]). When Israel were in the desert, a place devoid of seed, figs, wine, and pomegranates, they came and waged war against Sichon and Og, who fell into their hands, and they took all that was theirs. That kinG-dom was proud and haughty, though they had only four provinces worthy of the name — Asia, Alexandria, Carthaginia, and Antiochia, while these (Sichon and Og) had sixty cities, all worthy of \"kingdom,\" viz. (Devarim 3:4) \"… sixty cities, the entire province of the palace, the kingdom of Og in the Bashan.\" Israel came and waged war against them and they fell into their (Israel's) hands. But when Israel was surfeited with the spoils, they began \"spoiling\" the spoils — they tore apart garments and cast them away and tore apart beasts and cast them away — for they sought only vessels of silver and gold, viz. (Devarim 3:7) \"and every beast and the spoil of the cities we 'spoiled' unto ourselves.\" \"They came and sat in Shittim,\" in the place of sitoth. At that time Ammonim and Moavim arose and built markets for themselves from Beth Hayeshimoth until Har Hashaleg, where they installed harlots, old ones outside and young ones within, who sold flaxen garments. When an Israelite would eat and drink and make merry and go out to promenade and to buy something from the old one, she would offer it to him at cost, whereupon the young one would call out to him from within, saying \"Come and buy it for less,\" and he did so. The same, the next day and the day after. The third day she would say to him \"Come inside and pick for yourself — you're like one of the family.\" He obliged. The pitcher near her was full of Ammoni wine, the wine of idolators having not yet been forbidden to Israelites. She: \"Would you like to drink some wine?\" He obliged, and when the wine burned in him he said to her \"Consent to me,\" at which she took an image of Peor from under her breast-band and said to him: \"My master, if you want me to consent to you, bow down to this.\" He: \"Can I bow down to idolatry?\" She: \"What difference does it make to you? I am only asking that you bare yourself before him.\" (The sages ruled that baring oneself to Peor is its mode of worship.) The wine burned in him and he said \"Consent to me.\" She: \"If you want me to consent to you, 'veer off' from the Torah of Moses.\" And he did so, as it is written (Hoshea 10:10) \"They veered off to shame (i.e., to idolatry); and they became detestable (to Me) in loving (the daughters of Moav).\" In the end, they reverted to (their practice of) making idolatrous banquets for them to which they invited them, as it is written (Bamidbar 25:2) \"And they (the Moavite women) called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, etc.\" R. Elazar b. Shamua says: Just as a nail cannot be removed from a door without wood (attached), so, an Israel cannot leave Peor without souls (i.e., without adhesions thereof). Once, Pinchas from the district of Ariach was rolling (wine-) jars, when the spirit of Peor assaulted him, whereupon he brandished the spit against it and it fled. It returned to him the second night, saying \"Why did you curse me.\" Pinchas: \"I won't do it again.\" Once, Sabbatia of Ullas hired out his donkey to a gentile woman. When she came to the outskirts of the province, she said to him: \"Wait until I bare myself in its temple.\" After she left, he said to her \"Wait for me until I go in and do as you did.\" She: \"But you are a Jew!\" He: \"What difference does it make to you?\" He went in, (did his \"devotions,\") and wiped himself on the nose of Peor — whereupon the gentiles praised him, saying \"No one ever equaled you in this (worship).\" Once, a governor came from abroad to bow down to Peor. When he said to them \"Bring a bullock or a ram, which we sacrifice to it,\" they said to him \"We don't worship him in that manner. All you have to do is bare yourself before it\" — whereupon he loosed his cohorts upon them, who split their skulls, (the governor) saying \"Woe unto you and to your error!\" Not so, (i.e., not as the governor) the Israelites, of whom it is written (Bamidbar 25:3) \"And Israel attached itself to Ba'al Peor (at that time) and the L-rd was wroth with Israel.\" (4) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Take all the heads (i.e., judges of the people, and hang them (the Peor worshippers) up … in the face of the sun.\" (5) \"And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Slay each (of you) his (two) men that have joined themselves to Ba'al Peor.\" The tribe of Shimon came to Zimri: \"You are sitting in peace while we are being slaughtered!\" — whereupon he gathered 24,000 of his tribe, came to Kozbi, and said to her: \"Consent to me.\" She: I will consent only to the greatest of you, (someone) like Moses your master.\" He: \"I, too, am the chief of a tribe. And, what is more, I am greater than he, (Shimon) being second (of the womb of Leah), while he (Levi) is (only) third,\" saying which he seized her and stood her in the midst of all of Israel, viz. (Ibid. 6) \"And, behold, a man of the children of Israel came, and he brought near to his brothers the Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and they wept at the door of the tent of meeting.\" At that time Pinchas cried out \"Is there no one here who is ready to kill and to be killed! Where are the lions?\" (Bereshit 48:9) \"A lion's whelp is Judah,\" (Devarim 33:32) \"Dan is a lion's whelp\" — whereupon he began to shout. Seeing that all remained silent, he arose from his sanhedrin, took out his spear and placed it (i.e., the blade) in his (hollow) belt, supported himself on its haft, and left. (Seeing him about to enter her tent,) they called out to him \"Pinchas, where are you going?\" He replied: \"Is Levi always to be greater than Shimon?\" (\"Zimri can do it, so can I,\") — at which they said \"Let him go in\" — whereupon the perushim (the \"devout\" among them) permitted the thing. Once he entered, the L-rd performed six miracles: the first: Normally they would have separated (upon his entrance), but the angel kept them joined. The second: The angel sealed their mouths so that they could not cry out. The third: He transfixed them (with the spear) in their (conjoined) genitals, for the \"benefit\" of the skeptics, so that they not deny their cohabitation and maintain that he had gone in for the same purpose. The fourth: They did not slide off from the spear but remained in their places. The fifth: The angel lifted the lintel so that they both could appear to all slung from his shoulders. The sixth: When he left, the men of his (Zimri's) tribe, rose up to kill him, and the angel fought them off. When Pinchas saw that too much havoc was being wrought by the angel, he cast them to the ground and stood up and intervened, viz. (Psalms 106:30-31) \"And Pinchas arose and intervened, and the plague ceased, and it was reckoned to his merit.\" And six more miracles were performed for him: The seventh: The blade of the spear was lengthened until it transfixed both bodies and projected upwards. The eighth: The arm of Pinchas was strengthened (to support such a burden). The ninth: The haft did not break. The tenth: Their blood did not descend on Pinchas so that he not become tamei. The eleventh: The Holy One Blessed be He kept them alive so that they not die and cause Pinchas to become tamei. The twelfth: The uppermost (to be thrust through) is the lower on the spear (when it is lifted), but in this instance, Zimri was overturned upon Kozbi, as in the act, so that all of Israel could see that their death was ordained.",
            " The tribe of Shimon contended against the tribe of Levi: \"Would the son (Pinchas) of the daughter of this \"fattener\" (Yithro , who fattened calves for idolatry) seek to uproot an entire tribe (Shimon) from Israel! Don't we know whose son he is?\" When the L-rd saw them cheapening him thus, He began tracing his illustrious lineage, viz. (Bamidbar 25:11) \"Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the Cohein turned My wrath away from the children of Israel\" — a Cohein, the son of a Cohein; a zealot, the son of a zealot (Levi, viz. Bereshit 34:25); turner away of wrath, the son of a turner away of wrath (Aaron, viz. Bamidbar 17:13) turned My wrath away from the children of Israel.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 25:12) \"Therefore, say: Behold, I give to him My covenant to be to him a covenant of peace\": … whereby we are apprised that there descended from him twelve high-priests in the first Temple, whereby in the second Temple there were eighty high-priests, whose lives began to be shortened because they sold the high-priesthood for money. Once, a man sent by his son two urns of silver rimmed with silver (as a bribe), and another, two urns of gold rimmed with gold\" — whereupon they said \"The foal has outweighed the menorah.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 25:13) \"And it shall be unto him and to his seed after him a covenant of eternal priesthood\": This refers to the twenty-four priestly gifts bestowed upon the Cohanim. (Ibid.) \"because he was wroth for his G-d\": because he was ready to give his life. (Ibid.) \"and he will atone for the children of Israel\": It is not written \"to atone for the children of Israel,\" but \"and he will atone for the children of Israel.\" Until now he has not stirred (from his place), but he stands and atones until the revival of the dead."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 26:53) \"To these shall the land be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names\": I would understand that all are included — Israelites, Cohanim, Levites, proselytes, women, bondsmen, tumtumim (those of indeterminate sex), and hermaphrodites. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18:20) \"And the L-rd said to Aaron: In their land you shall not inherit\" — to exclude Cohanim. (Ibid. 24) \"In the midst of the children of Israel they shall not have an inheritance\" — to exclude Levites. (Ibid. 26:55) \"By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit\" — to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (Ibid. 59) \"To a man, according to his numbers, shall his inheritance be given\" — to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. R. Yoshiyah says: The land was apportioned to those who left Egypt, as it is written \"By the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit.\" What, then, is the intent of \"To these shall the land be apportioned\"? (To such as these,) to exclude minors (below the age of twenty). R. Yonathan says: The land was apportioned according to those who came to the land, as it is written \"To these shall the land be apportioned.\" And what is the intent of \"By the names of the tribes of their fathers\"? The L-rd changed this inheritance from all the inheritances in the Torah. For in all the inheritances in the Torah the living inherit the dead, whereas here, the dead inherit the living. Rebbi says: An analogy: Two brothers, Cohanim, were in a city. One had one son; the other, three. They go to the granary (to take their portion.) The first takes one sa'ah; the others, three, after which they go to their fathers' father and share equally. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: The land was apportioned to these and to these. How so? If they were of those who left Egypt, they took a share with those who left Egypt. If they were of those who entered the land, they took a share with those who entered the land. If they were both of these and of the others, they took a share of both — so that both verses are satisfied.",
            " (Bamidbar 26:54) \"To the (more) numerous (tribe) you shall increase its inheritance, and to the less (numerous) you shall decrease its inheritance.\" If one had five sons when he left Egypt, and ten sons when he entered the land, I apply to them \"To the numerous you shall increase its inheritance.\" If he had ten sons when he left Egypt, and five when he entered the land, I apply to them \"and to the less you shall decrease its inheritance.\" \"To a man\": to exclude women, tumtumim, and hermaphrodites. \"according to its numbers\": We are hereby taught that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned to each tribe according to its (head-count). And thus is it written (Joshua 17:14-15) \"And the children of Joseph said to Joshua: Why have you given me a single allotment as an inheritance, when we are a great multitude whom the L-rd had thus far blessed? And Joshua said to them: If you are a great multitude, go up to the forest country and clear an area for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzi and the Rephaim, the mountain of Ephraim constricting you.\" \"shall his inheritance be given\": I would understand this to mean (that each tribe took) indiscriminately. It is, therefore, written (55) \"by allotment.\" If \"by allotment,\" I would understand, by themselves (i.e., by their own lottery.) It is, therefore, written (56) \"By the word (of the lottery\"), whereby we are apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by the Holy Spirit. I might think, by himself (i.e., the high-priest, by means of the urim vetumim). It is, therefore, written \"shall its inheritance be divided,\" (connoting in the presence of the entire tribe).",
            " (Bamidbar 26:25) \"Only by lot shall the land be divided\": (\"Only\") — excluding Joshua and Calev (who received special portions.) And thus is it written (Judges 15:13) \"And to Calev ben Yefuneh was given a portion in the midst of the children by word of the L-rd to Joshua,\" and (Judges 1:20) \"And they gave Chevron to Calev as Moses had spoken,\" and (Joshua 19:49-50) \"And the children of Israel gave a portion to Joshua the son of Nun in their midst. By word of the L-rd they gave him the city that he asked for, Timnath Serach.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 26:55) \"By the names of the tribes of their fathers\": to exclude proselytes and bondsmen. (56) \"between the large and the small\": We are hereby apprised that Eretz Yisrael was apportioned by estimate — beth-kor (a large measure [of relatively inferior land]) against a beth-sa'ah (a small measure [of relatively superior land]) and vice versa."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:1) \"And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad\": When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: Not as the mercies of flesh and blood are the mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females. Not so the mercies of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His mercies are for males and females (equally). His mercies are for all! As it is written (Psalms 145:9) \"The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are upon all of His creations.\" \"the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of Machir, the son of Menashe\": Scripture apprises us that just as Tzelofchad was a first-born, so, were all of the others first-born, and to apprise us that they (the daughters) were worthy daughters of a worthy man. For all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for praise are righteous ones the seed of righteous ones; and all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for denigration are evildoers the seed of evildoers. R. Nathan says: It is written above (26:65) \"For the L-rd had said of them: They will surely die in the desert. And there was left not a man of them, etc.\", followed by \"And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc.\" What is the connection? Scripture comes to teach us that the strength of the women in that generation was greater than that of the men, the men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) \"Let us make a leader and return to Egypt, and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4) \"Give us a holding, etc.\"",
            " Likewise, (Ovadiah 1:1) \"The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom: We have heard a report, etc.\" Why did Ovadiah prophesy against Edom? To apprise us of the greatness of a tzaddik, who grew up in the lap of an evildoer but did not emulate his deeds, and how great the wickedness of an evildoer, who grew up between two righteous ones and did not emulate their deeds. Esav (Edom) grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds. Ovadiah grew up between two wicked ones, Achan and Izevel, and did not emulate their deeds. Let Ovadiah come, who grew up between two wicked ones and did not emulate their deeds, and prophecy against Esav, who grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds. Thus — \"The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom, etc.\" \"of the families of Menasheh the son of Joseph.\" Just as Joseph held Eretz Yisrael dear (viz. Bereshit 50:25), so did the daughters of Tzelofchad. \"And these are the names of his daughters: Machlah, Noah, Choglah, Milkah, and Tirtzah.\" — But perhaps all who are first in Scripture are first in worth? It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 36:11) \"And Machlah, Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah, and Noah, the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc.\" (the order being changed to teach us that they were all of equal worth.)",
            " (Bamidbar 27:2) \"And they stood before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein\": Scripture hereby apprises us that they stood there only (after) the fortieth year (of the exodus) after Aaron had died, viz. (Ibid. 33:38) \"And Aaron the Cohein went up to Hor Hahar by the 'mouth' of the L-rd, and he died there in the fortieth year, etc.\" \"before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein\": If Moses did not know (how to answer them), could Elazar know? Invert the verse (i.e., first Elazar, then Moses,) and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They were (all) in the house of study and they came and stood before (all of) them. R. Akiva says: It is written here (27:3) \"desert,\" and elsewhere (Ibid. 15:32) (in respect to a man gathering wood on the Sabbath) \"desert.\" Just as the man here is Tzelofchad, so, the man there. \"And he was not in the midst of the congregation\": the cavilers (viz. Shemot 16:2). \"who gathered against the L-rd\": the congregation of the spies. \"(nor in) the congregation of Korach.\" \"but he died in his own sin\": without inciting others (to sin) with him. \"and he left no sons\": for if he had a son, we would make no claim.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:4) \"Why should the name of our father be withheld from his family because he has no son?\" R. Yehudah says: It is written here \"name,\" and elsewhere (Devarim 28:6). \"Just as \"name\" here connotes inheritance, so, \"name\" there. And just as \"name\" here connotes seed, so, \"name\" there. \"because he has no son\": Why is this written? Is it not already written (3) \"and he left no sons\"? They were sage women and were expounding: But if there were a daughter of a son, we would make no claim. R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine from the disciples of R. Akiva. He said: Moses knew that daughters inherit. Where was the question? As to whether they inherit what is fit to be inherited (in Eretz Yisrael) as well as what is already in their possession. The section on inheritance was fit to be stated by Moses, but the daughters of Tzelofchad merited that it be stated through them. \"Merit is effected through the meritorious and liability through the liable.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:6-7) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Rightly do the daughters of Tzelafchad speak\": The daughters of Tzelafchad have claimed well, for thus is this section written before Me on high. Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges. Similarly, (Ibid. 36:5) \"Rightly does the tribe of the sons of Joseph speak.\" Similarly, (Ibid. 14:20) \"And the L-rd said: I have forgiven according to your words.\" The peoples of the world are destined to say this: \"Happy is the man whose words the L-rd acknowledges.\" \"Given shall be given to them the holding of an inheritance\": This is the inheritance of their father. \"in the midst of the brothers of their father\": This is the inheritance of the father of their father \"and you shall pass over the inheritance of their father to them\": This is the portion of the first-born — whence we are apprised that the daughters of Tzelafchad took three portions: that of their father, that of their father's father, and the double portion of the first-born. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Also that of their father's brothers, it being written \"Given shall be given to them.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 27:8) \"And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying\": This tells us only of the immediate situation (i.e., that of Tzelafchad's daughters). Whence do we derive (the same for) future generations? From \"And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: A man, if he die, and he have no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter.\" Rebbi says: In all instances (of inheritance) the term \"giving\" is used, but in this instance \"passing\" is the term employed. For only a daughter can \"pass\" an inheritance (from one tribe to another), her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e., what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written \"then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter.\" Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)? And whence is it derived that the son's daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e., an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations! Whence is it derived that females stand in the place of males (in all the \"inheritances\" of the Torah)? It follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons inherit and the brothers of the (deceased) father inherit, then just as with sons, females are equated with males, so, with all inheritors, females are equated with males. And just as with sons, males take precedence to females, so, with all inheritors, males take precedence to females. And just as with redeemers (of land) sons are equated with their fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with all inheritors, sons are equated with their fathers. And whence is it derived that a daughter inherits (her mother's possessions)? It is written (Bamidbar 36:8) \"And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.\" This tells me only of a daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter, whose power (of inheritance) is attenuated where there is a son, inherits (her mother), how much more so, a son! And whence is it derived that a man inherits his wife? From (Ibid. 27:11) \"… and he shall inherit (lit.,) her.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 36:8) \"And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.\", and (Ibid. 7) \"And an inheritance of the children of Israel shall not go around from tribe to tribe,\" and (Joshua 24:33) \"And Elazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Pinchas, his son … in the mountain of Ephraim.\" Now whence did Pinchas have (land) in the mountain of Ephraim? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Ephraim, who died and whom he inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles 2:22) \"And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad.\" Now whence did Yair have (land) in the land of Gilad? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Menasheh, who died and whom he inherited.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:11) \"And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him\": The \"nearest\" takes precedence in the inheritance. \"of his family\": his father's family or his mother's family? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 1:2) \"by their families, by their fathers' house\" — the families are according to the fathers. \"and he shall inherit her\": (as above). \"and it shall be to the children of Israel a statute of judgment.\" The Torah hereby authorizes the sages to adjudicate the matter (i.e., to decide who is the \"nearest.\") \"then you shall give his inheritance to his flesh who is near to him of his family\": Whoever is closest in \"flesh\" takes precedence in inheritance.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:12) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Go up to this Mount Avarim\": This is the inheritance of the children of Reuven. When Moses entered the (prospective) inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad, he rejoiced, thinking \"It seems to me that He has revoked His decree\" (against my entering Eretz Yisrael) — whereupon he poured out supplication before the King. An analogy: A king decreed against his son that he not enter the doors of his palace. He came to the gate and left it behind him; to the storage room, and left it behind him. As he was about to enter the inner chamber, he said to him \"My son, from here on, you are forbidden.\" Likewise, when Moses entered the inheritance of the children of Gad and the children of Reuven, he rejoiced, thinking \"It seems to me that He has revoked His decree,\" whereupon he began to pour out supplication before the L-rd. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Moses, the great sage, the father of the sages and the father of the prophets, even though he knew that a decree had gone forth against him, did not keep himself from supplication, how much more so should this hold true for other men!",
            " (Devarim 3:23) \"And I supplicated (va'ethchanan) the L-rd\": \"Va'ethchanan\" is a term of entreaty. \"at that time to say\": Let \"to say\" not be written. The intent is: Make it known to me whether I will enter the land or not. \"Adonai\": the L-rd (adon) of all who enter the world. \"Elokim\": With (the attribute of) justice did You create the world. \"You have begun\": You have begun to open the door for Your servant, in my entering the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. Variantly: You have profaned (i.e., broken) Your oath. You wrote in Your Torah (Shemot 22:19) \"He who sacrifices to a god shall be condemned.\" Yet your children served idolatry and I sought mercy from You, and You forgave them. (Devarim, Ibid.) \"to show Your servant\": miracles and mighty acts, viz. (Shemot 3:3) \"I shall turn aside and I shall see, etc.\" (Devarim, Ibid.) \"Your greatness\": This is the attribute of Your goodness, as it is written (Bamidbar 14:17) \"And now, let the power of the L-rd be made great.\" (Devarim, Ibid.) \"And Your (mighty) hand\": This is Your right hand, which is stretched out to all who enter the world, viz. (Shemot 15:6) \"Your right hand, O L-rd, is exalted in power,\" and (Psalms 44:4) \"Your right hand, and Your arm, and the light of Your countenance.\" (Devarim, Ibid.) \"mighty\": For You subdue with mercy the attribute of justice, viz. (Michah 7:18) \"Who is a G-d like You, forgiving transgression and passing by offense,\" (19) \"He will return and be merciful to us, He will subdue our transgressions,\" (20) \"You will give truth to Yaakov,\" and (Isaiah 45:23) \"I have sworn by Me: From My mouth has gone forth righteousness, a word that will not turn back.\" (Devarim, Ibid.) \"Who is mighty in heaven and earth\": The attribute of flesh and blood — He who is greater than his neighbor nullifies his neighbor's decree. But You — who can overrule You? And thus is it written (Iyyov 23:13) \"And He is One, and who can turn Him back?\" R. Yehudah b. Bava says: Not as the measure of the Holy One Blessed be He is the measure of flesh and blood. The measure of flesh and blood: A man registered in the royal codex — even if he gives great sums, he cannot extricate himself from it. But You say: Repent, and I will accept, as it is written (Isaiah 44:22) \"I have wiped away your offenses like a cloud, your sins, like a mist.\" Variantly: \"Who is G-d in heaven and earth, etc.\" — But perhaps, outside of heaven and earth, there is! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:39) \"And you shall know this day and you shall return it to your heart … there is no other\" — anywhere! (Ibid.) \"who can do as Your deeds and as Your (acts of) strength\": \"as Your deeds\" — in Egypt. \"as Your strength\" — at the (splitting of the) sea. Variantly: \"as Your deeds\" — at the sea. \"as Your strength\" — at the streams of Arnon. (Ibid. 25) \"Let me pass over na and see\".\" \"Na\" is a term of imploration. \"the good land across the Jordan\": As per R. Yehudah: The land of Canaan is \"good,\" and not the inheritance of the children of Reuven and the children of Gad. \"this good mountain\": Jerusalem. \"and the Levanon\": the Temple, viz. (Zechariah 11:1) \"Open your doors, O Levanon!\" and (Isaiah 10:34) \"And the Levanon shall fall by a mighty one (Nevuchadnezzar).\" Others say: \"Levanon\" — these are its (Israel's) kings, as in (Ezekiel 17:3) \"He came to the Levanon and he took its kings,\" and (II Chronicles 25:18) \"The thistle (i.e., the king) etc.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Devarim 3:26) \"But the L-rd was wroth with me\": As one would say (to his neighbor): That man was angry with me and was filled with wrath against me. \"because of you\": You are the cause. Likewise (Psalms 106:32) \"And they aroused the wrath (of the L-rd) at the waters of contention, and Moses was afflicted because of them.\" \"and He did not heed me\": He did not accept my prayer. R. Nathan says: It is written (Iyyov 36:5) \"Behold G-d is great, and He will not despise\" — the Holy One Blessed be He does not despise the prayer of the many, but here \"and He did not heed me.\" He did not accept my prayer. \"And the L-rd said to me, etc.\" He said to me: \"It is enough for you with this thing,\" (My refusal to heed You), tzaddikim being kept (by such rebuke) from a graver transgression. In this regard, R. Yishmael adduced a folk-saying: \"According to the camel is the load.\" Variantly: If Moses, the wise, the father of the wise; the prophet, the father of the prophets, was not forgiven, how much more so lesser men who delay judgment and who pervert judgment! (lit.,) \"much for you\": He said to him: Much (reward) is in keeping for you; much is stored away for you, viz. (Psalms 31:20) \"How much is Your good that You have stored away for those who fear You!\" And it is written (Isaiah 64:3) \"And none had ever heard or given ear (to such things before). No eye had ever seen a god other than You doing (such things for those) who hope to Him.\" Variantly: \"Much for you\": He said to him: \"Much have you labored; much have you toiled. Take leave, Moses, and rest,\" viz. (Daniel 12:13) \"Go (to your reward) in the end (of days), when you will rest.\" He said to him: \"A king (Moses) does not enter (Eretz Yisrael) as a commoner.\" Moses: \"If not, I will become Joshua's disciple.\" The L-rd: \"Rav lecha\" (\"The station of 'Rav' is yours.\") \"It does not befit a Rav to become the disciple of his disciple.\" Moses: \"I will enter through the air or through space.\" The L-rd: (Devarim 32:52) \"And there shall you not come.\" Moses: \"If not, let (at least) my bones cross the Jordan.\" The L-rd: (Ibid. 3:27) \"For you shall not cross this Jordan\": Your bones, too, will not cross, viz. (Ibid. 4:22) \"for I will die in this land; I will not cross the Jordan.\" Now can a dead man cross? — Moses was saying: \"My bones, too, will not cross.\" (Ibid. 3:26) \"Do not speak to Me again about this thing\": He said to him: \"Do not ask this thing of Me, but decree a different thing upon me, and I will do it.\" An analogy: A king issues a difficult decree upon his son, who asks him to rescind it. The king: Do not ask this thing of me, but decree a different thing upon me and I will do it, viz. (Iyyov 22:28) \"You will decree and it will be fulfilled for you.\" Moses: If not, (i.e., If I cannot enter Eretz Yisrael), let me see it. The L-rd: This I will do. (Devarim, Ibid. 23) \"Go up to the summit of Pisgah, etc.\" We are hereby apprised that the L-rd showed Moses the distant as (if it were) near; the concealed, as (if it were) revealed — all that is called \"Eretz Yisrael,\" as it is written (Ibid. 34:1-3) \"And the L-rd showed him the whole land … and all of Naftali … and the Negev and the plain, etc.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Devarim 34:4) \"And the L-rd said: This is the land, etc.\": R. Akiva says: Scripture hereby apprises us that the L-rd showed Moses all the recesses of Eretz Yisrael as (if it were) a set table, viz. (Ibid. 1) \"And the L-rd showed him all the land.\" R. Eliezer says: He empowered Moses' eyes to see from one end of the world to the other. And thus do you find with the tzaddikim — that they see from one end of the world to the other, as it is written (Isaiah 33:13) \"The King in His beauty shall your eyes see. They shall see the land roundabout.\" We find, then, two kinds of \"seeings\" — one of pleasure; the other, of pain. Of Abraham it is written (Bereshit 13:14) \"Lift up your eyes and see, from the place where you find yourself, etc.\" — a seeing of pleasure. Of Moses it is written (Bamidbar 27:12) \"Go up to this Mount Avarim, etc.\" (Devarim 3:27) \"Go up to the summit of Pisgah, etc.\" — a seeing of pain. And thus do you find two kinds of \"drawing near\" — one for the sake of Heaven; the other, not for the sake of heaven. (Devarim 4:11) \"And you drew near and you stood at the foot of the mountain\" — drawing near for the sake of Heaven. (Ibid. 1:22) \"Then all of you drew near to me\" — drawing near not for the sake of Heaven. (Ibid. 3:28) \"And command Joshua and strengthen him and hearten him\" — towards the learning (of Torah). R. Yehudah says: Command him in respect to the Giveonites (i.e., to accept them). Variantly: Command him relative to the trials and tribulations and the contentions. \"for he will pass before this people, and he will cause them to inherit, etc.\": We are hereby apprised that he would not die until he had caused them to inherit the land. \"the land that you will see\": We are hereby apprised that Moses saw with his eyes what Moses did not traverse with his feet.",
            " (Devarim 3:29) \"And we stayed in the valley near Beth-Peor\": He (Moses) said: See which sin I have sinned, how many supplications I uttered, and (still) it was not forgiven me. And you, how many sins you have sinned, yet the L-rd has said to you: \"Repent and I will accept\" (your penance). R. Yehudah b. Bava says: In three places Israel bordered upon grave transgression and the L-rd said to them \"Repent and I will accept,\" viz. (Shemot 15:24) \"And the people complained against Moses, saying 'What will we drink, etc.'\" What is written there? (Ibid. 26) \"And He said: If you hearken to the voice of the L-rd your G-d and you do what is just in His eyes, etc.\" Similarly, (Devarim 9:22) \"And in Taveirah, and in Massah, and in Kivroth Hata'vah, you angered the L-rd, etc.\" What is written there? (Ibid. 10:12) \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you, etc.?\" Here, too, (Ibid. 3:29) \"And we stayed in the valley near Beth-Peor, etc.\" … (Ibid. 4:1) \"Give ear to the statutes and the judgments, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 27:13) \"Then you will see it (Eretz Yisrael), and you will be gathered to your people — you, too — as Aaron your brother was gathered\" — whence we are apprised that Moses lusted after such a death."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:14) \"when you flouted My command in the desert of Tzin in the contention of the congregation\": R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Moses and Aaron, too, died by kareth (\"cutting-off\"), as it is written (Devarim 32:51) \"because you did not sanctify My name, etc.\" (the implication being) if you had sanctified Me, your time would not yet have come to die.",
            " Two leaders arose (for Israel). One of them said: Let my sin not be recorded; the other: Let my sin be recorded. David said: Let my sin not be recorded, viz. (Psalms 32:1) \"Of David, a maskil. Happy is he whose offense is forgiven, whose sin is covered over.\" Moses said: Let my sin be recorded — whence \"when you flouted My command in the desert of Tzin in the contention of the congregation.\" An analogy: Two women received stripes in beth-din, one for having gone astray; the other, for having eaten pagim (unripe fruits) of shevi'ith. The latter says: Please publicize my sin, so that the bystanders not say: Just as the first is being smitten for straying, so is she — whereupon they hung such a fruit on her neck and called out before her: \"This one is being smitten for (having eaten) pagim.\" R. Eliezer Hamodai says: Come and see how beloved are tzaddikim by the Holy One Blessed be He. For wherever their death is mentioned, there their sin is mentioned. Why all this? So that men not have an opening for saying: They died because of some (grave) secret corruption. Similarly, in four places the death of the sons of Aaron (Nadav and Avihu) are mentioned. And wherever their death is mentioned their sin is mentioned, to stress that it was that alone which caused their death. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is thus merciful in a time of anger, how much more so, in a time of favor, viz. (Isaiah 49:8) \"In a time of favor I have answered you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you!\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:15) \"And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say, etc.\": (This is mentioned) to apprise us of the virtues of the righteous, that when they are about to die they put aside their own concerns and occupy themselves with those of the congregation. \"to say\": What is the intent of this? Moses said to Him: Tell me whether you are appointing leaders for them or not — until the Holy One Blessed be He answered him (Ibid. 18) \"Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man who has spirit in him (viz. 16), and place your hand upon him.\" R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses made requests of the Holy One Blessed be He and He responded to them, viz. (Shemot 6:12) \"And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: The children of Israel did not hearken to me. How, then, will Pharaoh do so? And I am impeded of speech.\" What is the intent of \"to say\"? Moses said to him: Apprise me whether or not you will redeem them — until the L-rd granted his request, viz. (Ibid. 7:4) \"And I will take out My hosts, My people, the children of Israel, from the land of Egypt.\" Similarly, (Bamidbar 12:13) \"And Moses cried out to the L-rd to say \"G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray you.\" What is the intent of \"to say\"? He said before Him: Tell me, I pray You, whether or not You will heal her — until the Holy One Blessed be He answered his question, viz. (Ibid. 14) \"Now if her father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days?\" Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) \"And I supplicated the L-rd at that time to say\": What is the intent of \"to say\"? He said to Him: Tell me whether or not I will enter the land — until the L-rd answered him, viz. (Ibid. 26) \"It is enough for you, etc.\" Here, too, what is the intent of \"to say\"? He said to him: Tell me whether or not You are appointing leaders for them — until the L-rd answered him: \"Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:16) \"Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, etc.\": Scripture hereby apprises us that all the spirits issue only from Him. R. Eliezer the son of R. Yossi Haglili says: Let this \"sign\" always be in your hand: that so long as a man is alive his soul is reposited in the hand of its Owner, as it is written (Iyyov 12:10) \"… that in His hand is the spirit of all living things. When he dies, it is reposited in the otzar (\"the treasury,\") as it is written (I Samuel 25:29) \"and may the soul of my master be bound up in the bond of life.\" I might think, (the soul of) both the righteous and the wicked; it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"and may He sling out the soul of your foes (as) in the hollow of a sling.\" \"a man over the congregation\": This is Joshua, as it is written (Psalms 78:25) \"the bread of the mighty (i.e., manna) did a man eat.\" And why did Scripture not specify (that it was Joshua)? So as not to stir up controversy (over the appointment of Joshua) among his sons and the sons of his brother (Aaron, i.e., Elazar and Ithamar.)\"",
            " (Bamidbar 27:17) \"who will go out before them and who will come in before them\": Not as others, who send others in the vanguard and who bring up the rear. But as Moses did, viz. (Bamidbar 21:34) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Do not fear him (Og, [to confront him in the vanguard]) for I have delivered him into your hand.\" And as Joshua did, viz. (Joshua 5:13) \"And Joshua went up to him, and said: 'Are you for us or for our foes?'\" And as Pinchas did, viz. (Bamidbar 31:6) \"And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Pinchas (in the vanguard) etc.\" (Ibid. 27:17) \"who will go out before them\" — at the head, viz. (I Chronicles 11:6) \"And Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first, and he was at the head.\" \"who will go out before them\" — in a troop. \"and who will come in before them\" — in a troop. \"who will go out before them\" — on the way. \"and who will come in before them\" — on the way. \"and who will take them out\" — in his merits. \"and who will bring them back\" — in his merits. \"and who will take them out\" — with a count. \"and who will bring them back\" — with a count (i.e., none missing), as it is written (Bamidbar 31:44) \"And they said to Moses: Your servants have counted the men of war who were under our charge, and not one of us is missing.\" And why did they need atonement (viz. Ibid. 50)? For they had \"feasted their eyes\" on nakedness (i.e., on the Midianite women [viz. Ibid. 16]). (Ibid. 27:17) \"And let the congregation of the L-rd not be as sheep without a shepherd\": On this the tradition comments (Song of Songs 1:7) \"Tell me (Moses), O You, whom my soul loves, etc. for why should I be covered up,\" as in (Jeremiah 43:12) \"And he (Nevuchadnezzar) will cover up the land of Egypt, as the shepherd covers up his cloak.\" (Song of Songs, Ibid.) \"by the flocks of Your companions\" — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go out and see how the Holy One answers him (Song of Songs, Ibid. 8): \"If you do not know, you fairest among the women (i.e., most exalted of the prophets), go out in the footsteps of the flock.\" (See) what I am destined to do for them in the end (of their \"footsteps\"), \"and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherd\" — whence it is derived that the L-rd showed Moses all the leaders who were destined to serve Israel from the day they left the desert until the resurrection. Thus, \"Go out in the footsteps of the flock.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:18) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun\": (\"for yourself\") what is in your heart. Take for yourself him (Joshua), who you know to be worthy (of this high station), as per (Mishlei 27:18) \"the watcher of the fig-tree will eat its fruit, and the keeper (Joshua) of his master (Moses) will be honored.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"a man who has spirit in him\": one who can accommodate himself to the spirit of each individual. \"and place your hand upon him\": He said to him: Give Joshua an interpreter to ask and to expound and to issue rulings in your lifetime, so that when you die Israel not say: In his master's lifetime he did not rule, and now he rules! — whereupon he raised him from the ground (the place of disciples) and sat him next to him on the (judge's) bench. R. Nathan says: When Joshua entered, he (Moses) would silence the interpreter until he had come in and sat in his place.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:20) \"And you shall place (some) of your glory (i.e., shining of countenance) upon him\": and not all of your glory — whence we derive \"The face of Moses was like the face of the sun; the face of Joshua was like the face of the moon.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 27:21) \"And before Elazar the Cohein shall he (Joshua) stand\": Joshua had recourse to Elazar, and Elazar, to Joshua. \"And he (Joshua) shall inquire of him (Elazar)\": I might think, (that the inquiry was) \"between him and himself\"; it is, therefore, written \"as to the judgment of the urim.\" I might then think, (that he inquired) in full voice. It is, therefore, written \"and he shall inquire of him,\" (connoting in subdued voice). How so? He stood and moved his lips, and the high-priest answered his inquiries.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:22) \"And Moses did as the L-rd commanded him\": He did so with joy, undiluted with regret for his son and his brother's sons (i.e., for the honor not having been accorded them.) \"and he 'took' Joshua\": He \"took\" him with words, apprising him of the reward of the leaders of Israel in the world to come.",
            " (Bamidbar 27:23) \"And he placed his hands upon him\": He made him an overflowing vessel of Torah, viz. (above) \"the watcher of the fig-tree will eat its fruit.\" For it is written (Shemot 33:11) \"And his attendant, Joshua the son of Nun, a youth, did not depart from the midst of the tent,\" and, likewise, (Joshua 1:8) \"this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Joshua, of whom it is written (Devarim 34:9) \"He was full of the spirit of wisdom\" — If Joshua \"did not depart, etc.\", then how much more so (should this hold for) other men! \"And he commanded him as the L-rd had spoken by the hand of Moses\": Just as the Holy One Blessed be He had commanded Moses with joy, so, Moses commanded Joshua with joy. I might think that Moses' powers waned (with age.) It is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid. 7) \"And Moses was a hundred and twenty years old in his death. His eye had not dimmed\" (in deciding) between unclean and clean, between forbidden and permitted, \"and his strength had not abated\" in toiling in Torah."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:1-2) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel … My offering, My bread, etc.\" What is the intent of this? Because Moses said (Ibid. 27:16-17) \"Let the L-rd appoint\" (over Israel) \"someone who will go out before them, etc.\" An analogy: A king had a wife who, before her death, charged him over her sons saying: I pray you, take care of my sons, etc. The king: Before you charge me over my sons, charge them over me, that they not rebel against me and not cheapen me. Thus the Holy One Blessed be He to Moses: Before you charge Me over My sons, charge them over Me, that they not cheapen Me and that they not exchange My honor for foreign gods. And thus is it written (Devarim 31:19-20) \"And now, write for yourselves this song … When I bring them to the land … and they turn to other gods and spurn Me, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"My offering\": the blood. \"My bread\": the devoted portions. You say this, but perhaps \"My offering, My bread\" is the blood? It is, therefore, written (of the devoted portions) (Vayikra 3:16) \"And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, the bread of a fire-offering for a sweet savor.\" It is not the second formulation that is to be posited, but the first — \"my offering\": the blood; \"My bread\": the devoted portions. \"for My fires\": the fistfuls (of the meal-offerings) and the frankincense. \"My sweet savor\": the libations. \"shall you observe\": that it be brought only from the Temple funds. \"shall you observe\": that Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites stand over them. \"shall you observe\": It is written here \"shall you observe,\" and elsewhere (in respect to the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) \"shall you observe.\" Just as there, it had to be inspected four days prior to slaughtering, so, here. \"shall you observe to offer to Me in its appointed time\": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 12:6) \"and they shall slaughter it (the Paschal lamb),\" I might think both on a weekday and on the Sabbath. And how would I satisfy (Ibid. 31:14) \"Its (the Sabbath's) desecrators shall be put to death\"? In the instance of other labors, besides the slaughtering of the Pesach. Or, even including the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb. And how would I satisfy \"and they shall slaughter it\"? On all the other days, besides the Sabbath. Or, even on the Sabbath? It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 9:2) \"And the children of Israel shall offer the Pesach in its appointed time\" — even on the Sabbath. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan said: In this sense (i.e., the above) we have not yet heard it used. But, why is it written (Ibid. 28:2) \"Command the children of Israel, etc.\" If to teach about the tamid (the daily burnt-offering) that it overrides the Sabbath, this is not necessary. For it is already written (Ibid. 9) \"And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year.\" What, then, is the intent of (2) \"in its appointed time\"? It is \"extra\" towards the formulation of an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here \"in its appointed time,\" and elsewhere, (in respect to the Paschal lamb) \"in its appointed time.\" Just as in this instance (of the daily burnt-offering), Sabbath is overridden, so, in that instance.",
            " (Bamidbar 28:3) \"And you shall say to them\": This is an exhortation to beth-din (to charge the people). \"This is the fire-offering which you shall offer up to the L-rd … two for the day.\" Shimon b. Azzai says: \"two for the day\" — opposite the \"day\" (i.e., opposite the sun). You say this, but perhaps the meaning is: \"two for the day\" — an obligation (to be slaughtered) on that day? (Ibid. 4) \"The one lamb shall you offer in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer towards evening\" already speaks of the obligation for the day. How, then, are we to understand (here) \"two for the day\"? As opposite the day (i.e., the sun) — whence they ruled: The morning tamid was slaughtered at the north-west corner (of the altar) at the second (slaughtering) ring, and the evening tamid at the north-east corner at the second ring.",
            "\"the one lamb, etc.\" Why is this written? (It seems superfluous.) Because it is written (3) \"And you shall say to them: This is the fire-offering, etc.\" and (Shemot 29:38) \"And this is what you shall offer upon the altar,\" I might think that he should sacrifice four. It is, therefore, written \"the one lamb\" — not more than one.",
            " (Bamidbar 28:5) \"and a tenth of an ephah\": one of ten in an ephah. \"flour\": of wheat. You say this, but perhaps it may be of barley, spelt, oats or shifon (a kind of spelt). It is, therefore, written (Shemot 29:2) \"Of wheat flour shall you make them.\" Since \"flours\" are mentioned in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance it is specified that it must be wheat flour, so, all \"flours\" in the Torah are to be only of wheat. (Bamidbar 28:5) \"for the meal-offering mixed with oil of crushing\": to exclude (oil that is exuded from) what is cooked. This tells me only of (oil that is kasher for) meal-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) the menorah? It is written (in that regard) (Vayikra 24:2) \"Command the children of Israel that they take to you clear oil of beaten olives\" — to exclude what is cooked."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:6) \"A perpetual burnt-offering offered up at Mount Sinai\": The burnt-offering of Mount Sinai is being likened to the tamid burnt-offering. Just as the tamid burnt-offering required libations, so that of Mount Sinai required libations. R. Yossi Haglili says: \"as a sweet savor.\" It is likened to the sweet savor and not to the libations.",
            " (Bamidbar 28:7) \"And its (wine) libation, a fourth of a hin for the one lamb\": The libation is poured unmixed and not mixed. \"On the holy place (i.e., the altar) shall it be poured, a pouring of strong drink to the L-rd.\" They are poured on the altar and burned on the altar. R. Nathan says: Why is it written \"pouring, pouring\" (twice)? To include the water libation.",
            " (Bamidbar 28:8) \"And the second lamb\": Why is this written? Since it is written \"the one lamb shall you offer in the morning,\" I might think that if it were not offered in the morning it could be offered in the evening. It is, therefore, written \"the second shall you offer up towards evening,\" implying that if the morning tamid had not been offered, the evening tamid is not to be offered. When is this so? When the altar had not been inaugurated. But if it had been inaugurated, even the first may be offered in the evening. R. Shimon said: When is this so? When they were unwitting or under constraint (in not offering it in the morning), but if they were deliberate (in not doing so), if they did not offer the lamb in the morning, it could not be offered in the evening. If they did not smoke the frankincense in the morning, they can do so at twilight, for the altar is inaugurated only with the frankincense smoking of twilight, and the burnt-offering altar only with the morning tamid. Nor (is) the table (inaugurated) except with the show-bread of the Sabbath; nor the menorah except with the seven lamps of twilight. R. Shimon said: Even if the (pertinent) vessels were finished before their (relevant) time, they are inaugurated only in their time. And thus is it written (Shemot 39:43 - 40:1-2) \"And when Moses saw all the work — that they had performed it as the L-rd had commanded them, thus did they do — that Moses blessed them, saying: On the first day of the first month shall you set up the mishkan, etc.\" With what blessing did he bless them? He said to them: \"May it be His will that the Shechinah repose upon the work of your hands.\" And they responded \"May the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us. And establish the work of our hands upon us. The work of our hands — establish it.\" And though this is not written in the Torah, it is explicated in the writings, viz. (Psalms 90:16) \"May Your works be beheld by Your servants, and Your glory by their children. (17) And may the beauty of the L-rd our G-d be upon us, etc.\" Variantly: What is the intent of \"and the second lamb\"? Because it is written (of the Paschal lamb, Shemot 12:6) \"and they shall slaughter it at twilight,\" I do not know which takes precedence, the tamid or the Paschal lamb. It is, therefore, written \"the second\" — the second to the tamid, and not second to the Pesach (i.e., it is slaughtered before the Pesach.) From here they ruled: Nothing precedes the morning tamid but (the smoking of) the frankincense. And nothing follows the tamid of twilight but the incense, the Pesach, and those lacking atonement on Pesach eve, so that they can bring their atonement (and observe the Pesach.) (Bamidbar 28:8) \"As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 4-5) \"the one lamb shall you offer in the morning and the second lamb shall you offer towards evening. And a tenth of an ephah, etc.\", I might think that first the two temidim are offered. And then their libations; it is, therefore, written \"As the meal-offering of the morning and its libation shall you offer it,\" whereby we are apprised that when each sacrifice is offered, the libations are offered with it. \"a fire-offering\": Though it is consigned to the fire, it is not accepted until it is completely burned. \"a sweet savor\": gratifying to Me, in that I spoke and My will was done. \"to the L-rd\": Shimon ben Azzai says: Come and see that with all of the offerings in the Torah it is not written of them \"Elokim\" or \"Kel\" or \"Shakkai\" or \"Tzevakoth,\" but only Yod-Keh-Vav-Keh, the Tetragrammaton — so as not to give an opening to the heretics for their heresies (i.e., that there is a plurality of gods). And just as \"a sweet savor\" is written in respect to an ox, so is it written in respect to a lamb and in respect to a bird — whereby the Torah teaches us that there is no \"eating\" or \"drinking\" before the Holy One Blessed be He, but (that His) only (\"gratification\") is that He speaks and His will is done. And thus is it written (Psalms 50:12) \"Were I hungry, I would not tell you. For Mine is the world and its fulness. (11) I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are with Me.\" Lest I think He eats and drinks, it is written (Ibid. 13) \"Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of he-goats?\" Why, then, do I ask you to sacrifice to Me? To do My will. And thus is it written (Vayikra 22:29) \"When you sacrifice a thank-offering to the L-rd, it is to your favor that you sacrifice it.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:9) \"And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year without blemish\": It is written \"The one lamb shall you offer in the morning,\" and the (tamid of the) Sabbath is included in that. Scripture (here) removes it from its (merely) general category for (purposes of) stringency, (i.e., the fixed (additional [\"mussaf\"] offering). Variantly: From (Vayikra 26:2) \"My Sabbaths you shall keep and My sanctuary you shall fear\" it is deduced that the sacrificial service overrides the (keeping of the) Sabbath. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is that) the Sabbath overrides the sacrificial service? From \"And on the Sabbath day, two lambs of the first year, etc.\" we find the meaning of the above to be that the sacrificial service overrides the Sabbath. — But perhaps both individual and communal offerings (override it)? What is the context (of \"And on the Sabbath day\")? Communal offerings, (so that only communal and not individual offerings override the Sabbath.)",
            " (Bamidbar 28:10) \"the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath\": And not the burnt-offering of Sabbath eve (i.e., its limbs and fat-pieces), on the Sabbath, (but on Sabbath eve.) \"the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath\": And not the burnt-offering of this Sabbath on another Sabbath. If one did not sacrifice (the mussaf offering) of this Sabbath, I might think that he could do so on the next Sabbath. It is, therefore, written \"the burnt-offering of the Sabbath on its Sabbath\" — \"Once the day has passed, its sacrifice has passed.\" \"in addition to the daily burnt-offering and its libation\": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Sabbath) are sacrificed between (the two daily offerings)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:11) \"And in the beginnings of your months, you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 4) \"The one lamb shall you offer in the morning,\" I understand the beginning of the month (Rosh Chodesh) also to be included; therefore, Scripture removes it from the general category for greater stringency — the mussafim (of Rosh Chodesh). (But why is a special verse needed for the mussafim of Rosh Chodesh?) Let it be derived from (the mussafim of) Sabbath? (In that case I would say:) Just as (the mussafim of) Sabbath are two lambs, so, those of Rosh Chodesh; it is, therefore, written \"And in the beginning of your months, you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd, etc.\" — Scripture adduces a different numeration. R. Elazar b. R. Tzaddok says: There was a hin (a liquid measure) in the Temple, with markings: Thus far (the libation) for a bullock; thus far for a ram; thus far for a sheep. R. Yishmael says: There was no hin, but an additional measure of a log and a half in which was apportioned the high-priest's meal-offering, a log and a half in the evening, a log and a half in the morning.",
            " (Bamidbar 28:14) \"This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month.\" And not the burnt-offering of this month for a different month. If one did not sacrifice it this month, I might think he could sacrifice it on a different month. It is, therefore, written \"This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month,\" whereby we are taught that if the day passes, its sacrifice \"passes.\" \"for the months of the year\": What is the intent of this? From \"And the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt-offering to the L-rd,\" I might think the minimum of months — two; it is, therefore, written \"for the months of the year.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 28:15) \"And one kid of goats as a sin-offering to the L-rd\": to atone for \"a grave of the depth\" (i.e., tumah which was discovered only after one had come in contact with it.) \"in addition to the continual burnt-offering shall it be offered and its libation.\": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Rosh Chodesh) are sacrificed only between (the two temidim)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:16) \"And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, it is Pesach to the L-rd\": Scripture (here) makes it mandatory (and not optional.) (Ibid. 28:17) \"for seven days matzoth shall be eaten\": I might think that any matzoth (may be eaten [e.g., even those made of rice]). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) \"You shall not eat chametz with it. Seven days shall you eat matzoth with it.\" Only that which can be matzah (unleavened) or chametz (leavened) (is forbidden in the leavened state). These are the five varieties: wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oats. This excludes rice, millet, sesame, paragim, which never become matzah or chametz, but only decay."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:18) \"On the first day it is a calling of holiness.\" Celebrate it with eating and drinking and with clean garments. \"All work of labor you shall not do\": We are hereby apprised that working is forbidden. And whence is it derived that the work that is needed for the preparation of food is permitted? From (Shemot 12:16) \"Only (for) what is to be eaten by every person, that alone may be done for you.\" (Ibid. 19) \"And you shall present a fire-offering, a burnt-offering to the L-rd\": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he can sacrifice all. It is, therefore, written \"And you shall present a fire-offering,\" implying even one. I might then think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"two young bullocks, and one ram, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 28:24) \"As these shall you offer each day for seven days.\": Why is this written? For (were it not written) it would follow, (otherwise), viz.: Since Succoth requires a festival offering, and Pesach requires a festival offering, therefore, just as the offering of Succoth decreases progressively (each day [viz. Bamidbar 29:12-13]) so should that of Pesach decrease progressively. It is, therefore, written \"As these shall you offer each day\" — neither to increase or to decrease. \"in addition to the continual burnt-offering shall it be offered, and its libation\": We are hereby apprised that the mussafim (of Pesach) are sacrificed only between the two (temidim)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:26) \"And on the day of the first-fruits (Shavuoth), when you offer a new meal-offering to the L-rd\": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 23:16) \"Until the morrow of the seventh week shall you count fifty days,\" I might think (either) that he counts forty-nine days and offers the meal-offering on the fiftieth, or that he counts fifty days and offers the meal-offering on the fifty-first. It is, therefore, written \"And on the day of the first-fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the L-rd in (the completion of) your weeks,\" whence we find that it is not the second rending that is to be accepted, but the first — Count (up to) fifty, and offer the meal-offering on the fiftieth. — But I still can say: Offer the meal-offering on the fiftieth and observe the festival on the fifty-first! It is, therefore, (to negate this), written \"in your weeks\" (and not after them), \"a calling of holiness.\" \"a new meal-offering to the L-rd\": that it be the newest of the meal-offerings, that no other meal-offering precede it. From here it was ruled: The meal-offering of the first-fruits and the meal-offering of (i.e., accompanying) a beast is not brought (from the new crop) before the omer; and if it is brought, it is not fit. Before the two loaves (of Shavuoth), he should not bring it; but if he brought it, it is kasher. R. Tarfon said: Since the omer permits (for eating by men), and the two loaves permit (for sacrifice to the L-rd), then if I have learned about meal-offerings that precede the omer that they are unfit, the meal-offerings that precede the two loaves are also unfit. R. Yehudah b. Nachman said to him: No, this may be true of meal-offerings that precede the omer, which are kasher neither for (sacrifice to) the L-rd nor for (eating by) men. Would you say the same — that they are unfit — for (meal-offerings that precede) the two loaves? Even though they are not kasher for the L-rd, they are kasher for men! R. Akiva looked at him (R. Yehudah b. Nachman) and saw his face shining, whereupon he said to him: \"Yehudah b. Nachman, your face is shining, for you have 'bested' the elder\" (R. Tarfon). I doubt that you will live much longer.\" R. Elazar b. R. Yehudah said: This happened on Pesach, and when I came for the atzereth (Shavuoth) and asked: \"Where is Yehudah b. Nachman?\", I was told \"He has passed away.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 28:27) \"And you shall present a burnt-offering as a sweet savor to the L-rd\": You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torath Cohanim (Vayikra 27:18). \"You say this; but perhaps they are the same as those mentioned there? — Can you say this? Are they similar? You cannot accept the second supposition, but the first — You sacrifice these aside from those mentioned in Torah Cohanim. \"two young bullocks, one ram, etc.\": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written \"And you shall present a burnt-offering,\" implying even one. I might then think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written (to negate this) \"two young bullocks, and one ram, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 28:31) \"Unblemished shall they be for you, and their libations\": The libations are being likened to the (sacrificial) animal. Just as the animal is rendered unfit by blemishes, by deficiency or superfluity, so, the libations."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 29:12) \"And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, a calling of holiness shall there be for you\": Scripture makes it mandatory. (Ibid. 13) \"And you shall present a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L-rd\": If one found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, I might think that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:36) \"Seven days shall you present a fire-offering to the L-rd,\" implying (if he found) even one. I might think that even if all are found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written \"thirteen young bullocks, two rams, etc.\" Whence is derived the water libation on Succoth? R. Akiva says: It is written that the omer is to be brought on Pesach so that the grain be blessed for you, and bring bikkurim on Shavuoth so that the fruits be blessed for you. Also, (by induction), present a water libation on Succoth so that the rains of the year be blessed for you. R. Yehudah says: On the second day it is written \"veniskehem\" (\"and their libations\"); on the sixth, \"unesachehah\"; and on the seventh, \"kemishpatam\" — (superfluous) Mem Yod Mem, which spells \"mayim\" (water) — whence the water libation (on Succoth) is Scripturally intimated. R. Nathan says: What is the intent of (Bamidbar 28:7) \"On the holy place (the altar) pour a pouring\"? To include the water (libation)."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 29:35) \"On the eighth day, a withholding (\"atzereth\") shall there be for you\": Scripture \"withheld\" him from leaving. If one brought his offerings from Beth Paggai (outside of Jerusalem) to Jerusalem, I might think that he could eat them in Jerusalem and sleep in Beth Paggai. It is, therefore, written \"On the eighth day, an atzereth shall there be for you\" — Scripture withheld him from leaving (until the morning of the next day [viz. Devarim 16:7]). \"atzirah\" connotes confinement, as in (Jeremiah 36:5) \"I am atzur; I cannot go to the Temple of the L-rd\" and (Ibid. 33:1) \"Then the word of the L-rd came to Jeremiah a second time while he was still atzur in the prison yard.\" This tells me only of the last day of the festival that he is forbidden to leave. Whence do I derive (the same for) the first day? It follows inductively, viz. Since both are called \"a calling of holiness,\" just as it is forbidden to leave the first day, so it is forbidden to leave the last day.",
            " (Bamidbar 29:36) \"And you shall present a burnt-offering\": I might think that if he found bullocks but not rams, or rams but not lambs, that he does not sacrifice any until he finds all. It is, therefore, written \"And you shall present a burnt-offering, a fire-offering,\" implying (if he found) even one. I might then think that even if all were found, (he may present only one). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) \"one bullock, one ram, etc.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 29:39) \"These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals, aside from, etc.\": These are the vows and the gift-offerings that he vows on the festival, that he is to bring them on the festival. You say this, but perhaps Scripture speaks of the vows and the thank-offerings of the whole year? (This is not so, for Devarim 12:5-6) \"And you shall come there and you shall bring there … your vows and your gifts\" already speaks of the vows and gifts of the whole year. How, then, am I to understand \"These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals\"? As referring to the vows and the gift-offerings that he vows on the festival, that they are to be brought on the festival. \"aside from your vows\" These are the bird-pairs of the zavim and the zavoth (those with a genital flow), which (bird-pairs) the Torah permitted to be brought on a festival. \"aside from your vows … (31) And Moses said to the children of Israel\": (The purpose of \"And Moses said\" is) to conclude the foregoing. For if I read \"aside from your vows … (30:2) And Moses spoke,\" I would not know to what it (\"And Moses spoke\") referred, (to what precedes or to what follows?) It is, therefore, written \"from your vows … And Moses said,\" to conclude what precedes. These are the words of R. Yishmael."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 30:2) \"And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 10:3) \"And when they (the Cohanim) blow (tekiah) with them (the shofaroth) then all the congregation shall gather unto you,\" and (Ibid. 4) \"And if they blow (tekiah) with one, there shall gather unto you the chiefs,\" we do not know where (they are to gather). It is (therefore) written \"tekiah\" re the congregation, and \"tekiah\" re the chiefs. Just as the congregation, (Ibid. 3) \"to the door of the tent of meeting,\" so, the chiefs, at the door of the tent of meeting. — But perhaps all that is first in Scripture (i.e., \"congregation\") is first in act? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 30:2) \"to the heads of the tribes\" (and then to the tribes). Since \"spoke\" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance (i.e., this one) it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, it is, likewise, assumed in all such instances that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation. R. Yonathan says: This (derivation) is not necessary. It is already written Shemot 34:31-32) \"And Moses called to them, and there returned to him all the chiefs of the congregation, and Moses would speak to them. And after that, all the children of Israel would approach and he would command them, etc.\" Since \"speaking\" is written in the Torah unqualified (as to whom he is speaking first), and in one instance it is specified that the chiefs take precedence to the congregation, so, this is assumed in all such instances. If so, why need it be written (here) \"to the heads of the tribes\"? To indicate that the permitting (i.e., absolution) of vows is through experts alone.",
            " \"This is the thing\": We are hereby apprised that just as the prophets prophesied by \"Thus said the L-rd,\" so did Moses, viz. (Shemot 11:4), and, in addition, \"This is the thing, etc.\" Variantly: This is the \"word\" (for the absolution of vows.) A husband \"annuls\" (\"mefer\" [his wife's vows, viz. Bamidbar 30:9]), but a sage does not annul. A sage \"permits\" (\"matir\" [viz. Bamidbar 30:3]) but a husband does not permit. For would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If he who does not annul, permits, then he who does annul, how much more so should he permit. And if he who does not permit, annuls, then he who does permit, how much more so should he annul! It is, therefore, written \"This is the 'word' that the L-rd has commanded\": The husband \"annuls,\" and a sage does not annul. A sage \"permits,\" and the husband does not permit.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:3) \"A man, if he vow a vow, etc.\": \"A man\": to exclude a minor. — But this would exclude (both) a minor and one who is thirteen years and one day old! — It follows (by induction that it does not), viz.: It is written here \"vow,\" and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) \"vow.\" Just as there, \"ki yafli\" (i.e., if he can clearly articulate his vow), so, here — whence it was ruled: If he were thirteen years and one day old, his vows stand. If he were twelve years and one day old, his vows are examined (for the yafli factor). \"if he vow a vow\": (The meaning is:) If he \"supports\" his vow by something that is vowed (e.g., \"I vow not to eat X just as (I am forbidden to eat) an offering\" [i.e., something that is vowed]), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is not a vow. — But perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) \"to the L-rd\"? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6:2) \"to vow a vow\" — in any event (i.e., even without appending \"to the L-rd.\") — But perhaps, just as with vows, if he supports his vow by something which is a vow, it is a vow, and, otherwise, not — so with oaths? It is, therefore, written (in respect to oaths) (Ibid. 30:3) \"to bind a bond\" — in any event (i.e., even without such support). Why is there a difference between vows and oaths (in this regard)? Vows are like vowing by the life of the king. Oaths, (in that they must be in the name of the L-rd) are like swearing by the King Himself. And even though there is no proof for this (distinction) it is intimated in (II Kings 4:20) \"As the L-rd lives, and as you (King David) live.\" \"to bind a bond upon his soul\": Upon his soul he binds (i.e., forbids), but he does not bind upon others (i.e., his wife [i.e., he cannot confirm (in advance of her making them) all the vows that his wife will make (in his absence)]. For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If where he cannot annul his own vows once he has made them, he can annul his own vows before he has made them, then where he can annul his wife's vows once she has made them, how much more so can he annul his wife's vows before she has made them! And if he can do this, it follows that he can confirm them before she makes them. In the words of R. Eliezer: I might think that just as he can annul (her vows) before she makes them, so can he confirm them before she makes them — it is, therefore, written \"to bind a bond upon his soul\" — Upon his soul he binds, but he does not bind upon others.",
            " Variantly: What is the intent of \"to bind a bond upon his soul\"? Because it is written (Ibid.) \"According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do,\" I might think, even if he swore to eat neveiloth and treifoth, forbidden animals and reptiles. It is, therefore, written \"to bind a bond\" — to bind (i.e., to forbid) what is permitted, and not to permit what is forbidden. Variantly: What is the intent of \"upon his soul\"? From \"According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do,\" I might think, only if he spoke it. Whence do I derive (the same for) his accepting it upon himself (inwardly) by vow or oath? It is, therefore, written \"upon his soul.\" \"lo yachel devaro\": He shall not make his word \"chullin\" (\"profane\"). If he were a sage, (even though he annuls for others), he should not annul for himself. For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If he annuls for others, should he not annul for himself? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"He shall not make his (own) words \"chullin.\" \"lo yachel devaro\": This tells us (that if he breaks his vow) he is in transgression of \"lo yachel.\" Whence is it derived that he is also in transgression of \"You shall not delay\"? From (Devarim 23:22) \"If you make a vow to the L-rd your G-d, you shall not delay to pay it\" — whence we derive that he is in transgression of both. R. Eliezer says: This (\"You shall not delay\") is to equate (verbal) expression (i.e., vowing) with swearing. R. Akiva says: \"According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do\" — to equate expression with swearing (\"According to all that issues from his mouth shall he do.\") [followed by] \"And a woman, etc.\" A woman is hereby being likened to a man, viz.: Just as a man transgresses both (\"breaking\" and \"delaying\") so, a woman. \"And a woman\": I might think, when she has matured; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 30:17) \"in her maidenhood.\" If so, I might think, even a minor. It is, therefore written \"And a woman.\" How is this to be resolved? (We are speaking of a stage) where she has left the status of a minor and not yet achieved maturity. Whence is it derived that she is subject to vowing? It is written here \"vow,\" and elsewhere (Ibid. 6:2) \"vow.\" Just as \"vowing\" there connotes \"hafla'ah\" (distinctness of expression), so, \"vow\" here connotes \"hafla'ah\" — whence they ruled: The vows of a girl of twelve years and a day stand. Those of a girl of eleven are \"examined\" (for \"hafla'ah\"). \"if she vow a vow\": If she \"supports\" her vow by something which is vowed (see above), it is a vow. Otherwise, it is not a vow. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) that it is not a vow until he appends to it (Ibid.) \"to the L-rd\"? It is, therefore, written \"to vow a vow\" — in any event (i.e., even without appending \"to the L-rd.\") It is the first assumption, then, which is to be accepted. \"and she binds a bond\": This connotes an oath, as it is written (Ibid. 11) \"or she bound a bond on her soul by an oath.\" \"in her father's house\": in her father's domain — to include her having been widowed or divorced from betrothal (vis-à-vis her father's prerogative in her vows). — But perhaps it is to be understood literally, even after her marriage (i.e., that even then if she vowed while in her father's house, the father may annul the vow?) It is, therefore, written \"in her father's house in her youth.\" (Scripture is speaking of one) all of whose youth was spent in her father's house — to exclude one who was widowed or divorced in marriage, all of her youth not having been spent in her father's house.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:5) \"If her father hear her vow\": to exclude one who is deaf. \"If her father hear\": this tells me only of her father's hearing (her vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being told (of it) by others? From (6) \"on the day that he hears.\" \"and he be silent to her\": He must intend her. If his daughter vowed, and he said \"I thought it was my wife,\" he may (later) annul her vow (for it was never confirmed by his silence.) For it is written \"and he be silent to her\": He must intend her. \"Then all of her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand\": If she vowed and he confirmed it (by his silence), and then he annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand \"Then all of her vows shall stand\"? (As meaning) if he did not (later) annul them. Or, (am I to understand it as meaning that they stand) even if he did annul them, (their having been confirmed by his original silence)? And how would I understand (6) \"And if her father constrain her, (which implies that he can annul them)? If he never confirmed them (by his silence.) Of, even if he did confirm them, (if he then annulled them, they are annulled?) It is, therefore, written \"shall stand,\" Scripture hereby apprising us that every vow, if it were confirmed for one instant, cannot thereafter be annulled.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:6) \"And if her father constrain her\": I would not know what this \"constraint\" was were it not written (Ibid. 9) \"And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul the vow\" — whence I derive that \"constraint\" is annulment. — We learn vis-à-vis the husband that \"constraint\" is annulment. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? And, furthermore, we find vis-à-vis the husband that (his) silence on the day of his hearing is equated with the day of the vow for confirmation. Whence do we derive (the same for) the father? It follows (by induction), viz.: If he (the father) is permitted to confirm and he is permitted to annul, then if I have learned about annulment that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then for confirmation, too, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. — No, this may be true of annulment, where there is a distinction in the rule, (annulment in the heart not being considered annulment), wherefore silence on the day of hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, as opposed to confirmation, where no such distinction exists. Not succeeding (in deriving it in the above manner) I will derive it from (what obtains with) the husband, viz.: Since the husband annuls and the father annuls, then just as with the husband, silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the same obtains with the father, too. Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If for the husband, who does not achieve exclusivity (of prerogative in the area of his wife's vows), silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, then the father, who does (occasionally) achieve exclusivity, how much more so should silence on the day of his hearing be equated with (silence on) the day of the vow! — No, this may be true of the husband, who annuls (her vows) when she has matured, (as opposed to her father who does not), wherefore silence on the day of his hearing is not equated with (silence on) the day of the vow. Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination (we turn to Scripture, viz.:) It is written (Ibid. 17) \"These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter\": The father is likened to the husband, viz.: Just as with the husband, \"constraint\" is annulment, and silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow, towards confirmation — so with the father. (Ibid. 6) \"and the L-rd will forgive her\": If she (one's wife) made a vow and he annulled it in his heart and she broke it (to her thinking) wilfully, whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness? From \"and the L-rd will forgive her.\" Now does this not follow a fortiori? If vows which are (thus) annulled require forgiveness, how much more so vows which are not annulled! An analogy: One, thinking that he was eating swine's flesh ate lamb flesh instead. If he requires forgiveness, how much more so one who intended to eat swine's flesh and actually ate it! \"for her father has constrained her\": If she said: \"I know that father would annul any vow that he heard,\" I might think it is annulled; it is, therefore, written \"for her father has constrained her.\" If the father annuls it, it is annulled; if not, it is not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: \"Any vows that my daughter makes from now until I return, annul them,\" and he did so, I might think that they are annulled; it is, therefore, written \"for her father has constrained her.\" If her father annulled them, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like himself.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:7) \"And if she be to a man, and her vows be upon her\": This refers to one who is betrothed. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: In either case, (i.e., either betrothed or wed) Scripture comes to make a distinction, viz.: As long as she is in her father's house, her father and her husband (jointly) annul her vows. If she is wed, her father does not annul her vows. \"and her vows be upon her\": the vows that \"came along\" with her from her father's house to her husband's house. Whence do I derive (the same for) vows that she made on his (her husband's) domain? — Do you ask? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he annuls vows that she vowed not in his domain, how much more so vows that she made in his domain! Variantly: \"and her vows be upon her\": (Can the husband annul only) vows which were never confirmed (in her father's house) or even vows which were confirmed there? It follows (inductively), viz.: The husband annuls and the father annuls. Just as the father annuls only vows which were never confirmed or annulled, so, the husband. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If the father, who has an exclusive prerogative (over his daughter's vows) can annul only vows which were never confirmed, how much more so, the husband, who does not have such a prerogative! — No, this may be true of the father, who does not annul in her maturity — wherefore he annuls only vows which were never confirmed, as opposed to the husband, who does annul (the vows of her) maturity — wherefore he can annul every vow, (even those confirmed in her father's house)? Not having succeeded with (pure) ratiocination, we must revert to Scripture, viz.: \"These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. Scripture likens the husband to the father, viz.: Just as the father can annul only those vows which were never confirmed, so, the husband. \"or the utterance (mivta) of her lips\": \"bitui\" (like \"mivta\") connotes an oath, as in (Vayikra 5:4) \"Or if a soul swear 'levatei' with his lips.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 30:8) \"And her husband hear\": to exclude one who is deaf. \"And her husband hear\": This tells me only of his own hearing. Whence do I derive (the same for) others' hearing (and reporting it to him? From (9) \"And if on the day of her husband's hearing.\" (Ibid. 8) \"and he be silent to her.\" He must intend her. If his wife vowed, and he said: \"I thought it was my daughter,\" he may annul it later (see above), it being written \"and he be silent to her.\" He must intend her. \"then all of her vows shall stand\": If she vowed and he confirmed (her vow by his silence), and he later annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand \"then all of her vows shall stand\"? If he did not annul them. Or, even if he did annul them, and how would I understand (9) \"and he annul her vow\"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? (See the same discussion vis-à-vis one's daughter above.) It is, therefore, written \"they shall stand,\" Scripture apprising us that any vow which was confirmed at the time cannot thereafter be annulled.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:9) \"And if on the day that her husband hear, he constrain her and annul her vow\": We learn vis-à-vis the husband that \"constraint\" is annulment and vis-à-vis the husband that silence on the day of his hearing is equated with (silence on) the day of the vow.",
            "\"and he annul her vow\": He can annul the vows that are upon her (i.e., that she has already made), and not the vows that are not upon her (i.e., those that she is destined to make.) R. Eliezer says that he can do so, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: If where he cannot annul the vows that he has made, he can annul the vows that he is destined to make, then where he can annul the vows that his wife has made, how much more so can he annul the vows that she is destined to make! They (the sages) said to him: No, it is written \"and he annul her vow which is upon her.\" He can annul those vows which she has already made, but not those which are not yet upon her. Variantly (Ibid. 14) \"Her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it\": What (already) came to confirmation can come to annulment. What did not (yet) come to confirmation (i.e., those vows that she is destined to make) are not subject to (proactive) annulment. \"and the L-rd will forgive her\": If she vowed and he annulled it in his heart, and she went and broke (what she thought to be a standing vow) wilfully — whence is it derived that she requires forgiveness? From \"and the L-rd will forgive her.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 30:10) \"And the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman\": widowed or divorced after marriage. You say after marriage, but perhaps it is after betrothal? You reason thus: Since a father cannot annul the vows of his daughter once she has come of age (bogereth [twelve and a half years]), and he cannot annul the vows of his widowed daughter, then just as a bogereth is one who has entirely left her father's domain, so, the widowed and divorced woman in question must be one who has left her father's domain (i.e., widowed and divorced after marriage, as opposed to after betrothal, in which instance she is still partially in his domain.) R. Akiva says: She is called \"an orphan in her father's lifetime\" (in respect to vows.) — But perhaps even if she were widowed or divorced (after marriage) and married another, I \"pronounce\" over her \"and the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman\" (her vows shall stand)? It is, therefore, written (to negate this, Ibid. 11) \"and if in the house of her husband, etc.\" This tells me only of a woman who married an Israelite. Whence do I derive (the same for) a widow who married a high-priest or a divorcée or a chalutzah (one who had received release from levirate marriage), who married an ordinary Cohein? From \"And if in the house of her husband\" — in any event. \"And if in the house of her husband she vowed\": This refers to a married woman. — But perhaps it refers only to a betrothed woman? (This cannot be,) for (Ibid. 7) \"And if she be (betrothed) to a man\" already refers to a betrothed woman. How, then, am I to understand \"And if in the house of her husband she vowed\"? As referring to a married woman.",
            " (Bamidbar 30:12) \"and her husband heard\": to exclude one who was deaf. \"And her husband heard\": This tells me only of one who himself heard (the vow). Whence do I derive (the same for) his being informed by others? From (13) \"on the day of his hearing,\" \"and he was silent to her\": to (the end of) confirmation. You say this, but perhaps (the \"silence\" intended is the silence of) taunting. (This cannot be, for (Ibid. 15) \"And if her husband be silent to her from day to day\" already speaks of (the silence of) taunting. How, then, am I to understand \"and he was silent to her\"? As referring to (the silence of) confirmation. (Ibid. 12) \"then all of her vows shall stand\": If she vowed and he confirmed (her vow by his silence), and he later annulled it, I might think that it is annulled. And how would I understand \"then all of her vows shall stand\"? If he did not annul them. Or, even if he did annul them, and how would I understand \"and he annul her vow\"? If he had not confirmed it. Or, even if he did confirm it? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 12) \"shall stand.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 30:13) \"Her husband has annulled them\": If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. If she said: \"I know that any vow of mine that my husband would hear of he would annul,\" I might think that it is annulled. It is, therefore, written \"Her husband has annulled them.\" If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. If he said to a caretaker: \"Annul all the vows that my wife makes from now until I return from that place,\" and he did so, I might think that they would be annulled. It is, therefore, written \"Her husband has annulled them.\" If the husband annuls, they are annulled; if not, they are not annulled. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find in all places that a man's messenger is like the man himself. \"and the L-rd will forgive her\": If she vowed and he annulled it in his heart, and she went and broke (the vow wilfully), whence do we derive that she (still) requires forgiveness? From \"and the L-rd will forgive her.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 30:14) \"Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 9) \"and he annul the vow which is upon her,\" I might think, whether or not it involves affliction. It is, therefore, written \"Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it.\" Scripture speaks only of vows involving affliction. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that he may annul them]) for vows affecting relations between him and her? From (Ibid. 17) \"These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter\" — whether or not they entail affliction. And just as this vow (i.e., a vow involving affliction) is a vow which is not absolved by others (i.e., sages [but annulled by the husband]), so, all vows (i.e., those between husband and wife) which are not absolved by others (are annulled by the husband.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: We find vows which are absolved by others and which may be annulled by the husband. How so? If she said: \"I forbid the fruits of the world to myself,\" he may annul it. (If she said:) \"I forbid the fruits of the province to myself,\" he can bring them from a different province. (If she said:) \"I forbid the fruits of this shopkeeper to me,\" the husband cannot annul it. And if his livelihood came only from him, he can annul it. We find, then, that only a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows entailing affliction. Whence do we derive the same for a father (vis-à-vis his daughter)? It follows (by induction), viz. Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows involving affliction, so, a father. — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: Since a father can annul and a husband can annul, then just as a father can annul any vow, so, a husband can annul any vow. How, then, am I to understand \"Every vow and every oath of binding to afflict the soul, her husband shall confirm it, etc.\"? As referring to the days of her maturity (bagruth), but in the days of her maidenhood (na'aruth), he may annul all of her vows. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 17) \"in her maidenhood in her father's house.\" (i.e., This distinction between 'na'aruth and bagruth) applies only in her father's house, but not in her husband's house. I have reasoned and reversed. The reversal was refuted, and I have \"merited\" returning to the original formulation, viz.: Since a husband can annul and a father can annul, then just as a husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so, a father. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If a husband, who can annul in her maturity, can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, how much more so a father! — No, this may be true of a husband, who does not have exclusive authority (in the annulment of vows) — wherefore he can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, as opposed to a father, who does have such authority — wherefore he can annul all vows. I have not succeeded in deriving it by reasoning; it is, therefore, written \"These are the statutes, etc.\" likening the father to the husband, viz.: Just as the husband can annul only vows between him and her and vows of affliction, so the father. \"her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it\": If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and he confirmed it for figs, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, it is not annulled until he annulled it also for grapes. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, it is all confirmed. If he annulled it for figs, but not for grapes, it is all annulled, it being written \"her husband shall confirm it and her husband shall annul it.\" Just as \"shall confirm it\" (connotes even) \"part of it,\" so, \"shall annul it\" (connotes even) \"part of it.\" If she vowed not to eat figs and grapes, and a sage was consulted (for absolution) and he (explicitly) permitted it for dates, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is all permitted. If he forbade it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all forbidden. If he forbade it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes, but not for figs, it is forbidden. If her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all annulled. If he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, it is all confirmed. When is this so? When it is all one vow. But if she said: I vow not to eat figs, and, in addition, I vow not to eat grapes, and a sage were consulted, and he permitted it for figs, but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs — or if her husband annulled it for figs but not for grapes, or for grapes but not for figs, or if he confirmed it for figs but not for grapes or for grapes but not for figs — (then only) what was (specifically) confirmed is confirmed, and what was (specifically) annulled is annulled."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 30:14) \"And if her husband be silent, silent to her from day to day\": This is the silence of taunting. You say this, but perhaps it is the silence of confirmation (of the vow)? (This is not so, for Ibid. 12) \"and he was silent to her\" already speaks of the silence of confirmation. How, then, is \"and he be silent, silent\" to be understood? As referring to the silence of taunting. \"from day to day\": I might think, from time to time (i.e., for a twenty-four hour period); it is, therefore, written \"which are upon her. He has confirmed them for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing\" (i.e., until the night). R. Shimon b. Yochai says: \"from time to time (i.e., a twenty-four hour period),\" it being written \"from day to day.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 30:16) \"And if he annul them after his hearing\": after his confirmation of the vow. You say this, but perhaps it is \"after his hearing,\" literally? (This cannot be, for) \"for he was silent to her on the day of his hearing\" already speaks of hearing. How, then, am I to understand \"after his hearing\"? As after his confirmation of the vow. \"And if he annul them after his hearing,\" i.e., after his confirmation (and she breaks her vow), \"then he shall bear her sin.\" (i.e., he takes her place for (punishment of) the sin. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz. If in respect to G-d's measure of punishment, which (relative to that of reward) is small, one who causes his neighbor to go astray takes his place for punishment, then, in respect to His measure of good, which is (relatively) large, how much more so (is one rewarded for being instrumental in his neighbor's mitzvah)!",
            " (Bamidbar 30:17) \"These are the statutes which the L-rd commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter\": Father is likened to husband, and husband to father in all of the ways we have mentioned \"in her maidenhood (in) the house of her father\", but not \"in her maidenhood\" in the house of her husband (i.e., her husband, unlike her father, does have prerogatives in her vows beyond her maidenhood.) R. Yishmael says \"in her maidenhood in the house of her father\": Scripture here speaks of a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband (jointly) annulling her vows."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 31:1-2) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Take the revenge of the children of Israel, etc.\": This is in praise of the leaders of Israel. They do not depart from the world until they take Israel's revenge, which is the revenge of Him who spoke and brought the world into being. \"from the Midianites\": But were the Moavites not the initiators? As it is written (Bamidbar 22:4) \"And Moav said to the elders of Midian, etc.\" and (Ibid. 7) \"And the elders of Moav went and the elders of Midian, etc.\" They had never made peace with each other — except when it came to warring with Israel. An analogy: Two sheep dogs were always at odds with each other, until a wolf came to snatch a lamb from the flock, when one of them, standing up against it, the other said: If I don't help him now, he will kill the lamb and then will turn against me and kill me — whereupon they made peace with each other and took on the wolf. Likewise, Moav and Midian were never at peace with each other, viz. (Bereshit 36:35) \"… who smote Midian in the field of Moav.\" But when they came to make war against Israel, they made peace with each other. Why, then, \"from the Midianites\"? For they \"counseled\" against Israel. \"the Midianites\" — they \"inveighed\" (\"midaynin\") against Israel.",
            " (Bamidbar 31:2) \"Afterwards you will be gathered unto your people\": We are hereby apprised that Moses' death was contingent upon the defeat of Midian — in spite of which he entered into it with zeal, viz. (Ibid. 3) \"And Moses spoke to the people, saying 'hechaltzu,'\" connoting zeal, as in (Devarim 3:18) \"Chalutzim shall you cross over.\" (Ibid.) \"And let them be against Midian to execute the vengeance of the L-rd against Midian\": He told them: You are not executing the vengeance of flesh and blood, but the vengeance of Him who spoke and brought the world into being, as it is written (Nachum 1:2) \"the L-rd is a G-d of scorn and revenge.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 31:4) \"A thousand to a tribe, a thousand to a tribe\": 24,000 all together, viz. (Ibid. 5) \"And there were handed over … twelve thousand armed for the host, etc.\" R. Akiva says: \"a thousand to a tribe, a thousand to a tribe.\" Why (add) \"And there were handed over, etc.\" To exclude the tribe of Levi. \"And there were handed over of the thousands of Israel\": Scripture hereby apprises us that they were just and righteous men, who gave of themselves for the cause. R. Nathan says: Others handed them over: \"This man is kasher — Let him go! This man is a tzaddik — Let him go!\" R. Elazar Hamodai says: Come and see the love (of Israel for) the shepherd of Israel. So long as they had not heard that the death of Moses was attendant upon the war with Midian, what is written of them? (Shemot 17:4) \"Just a little more and they will stone me.\" When they heard of it, they began hiding (to avoid conscription, so as not to be instrumental in his death) — notwithstanding which they were conscripted perforce, viz. \"And there were handed over of the thousands of Israel, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 31:6) \"And Moses sent them, a thousand to a tribe to the host, them and Pinchas\": We are hereby apprised that they were as \"weighty\" as Pinchas, and Pinchas was over and against all of them. Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? Because Pinchas went to take revenge (of the Midianites) for his mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot 2:16), it being written (Bereshit 37:36) \"And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) to Egypt.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"and the holy articles … in his hand\": This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) \"And they shall not see when the 'holy' is being covered, lest they die.\" (Ibid. 31:6) \"in his hand\": \"his hand\" is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) \"and he took all his land from his hand,\" and (Bereshit 24:10) \"and all the good of his master in his hand.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 31:7) \"And they warred against Midian\": They surrounded it from four sides. R. Nathan says: They left a fourth side for them to flee from. (Ibid. 8) \"the five kings of Midian\": As they were all one in counsel, they were all one in death. \"and Bilam the son of Beor they slew by the sword\": Israel gave him his full reward and did not stint him. For he said to them: When you were six hundred thousand (in the days of Balak), you could not withstand them, and would you withstand them now? Whereupon they gave him his full \"reward\" (for his sound advice) and did not \"stint\" him. R. Nathan says: With the four judicial death penalties they slew him. As it is written (Joshua 13:22) \"And Bilam the son of Beor the sorcerer the children of Israel slew by the sword together with their slain.\" (Bamidbar 31:10) \"and all tirotham\": This refers to their houses of idolatry. Variantly: the posts of their sentinels. (Ibid. 31) \"And they took all of the spoil … and they brought it to Moses.\" Scripture here apprises us that they were just and upright and not suspect of theft, as opposed to (Joshua 7:1) \"And the children of Israel embezzled the spoils,\" while here \"And they took all of the spoil … and they brought it to Moses.\" (Bamidbar 31:13) \"And Moses and Elazar the Cohein went out\": Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: Because they saw the youth of Israel going out to snatch the spoils. (Ibid. 14) \"And Moses was wroth with the commanders of the host\": \"the great ones bear the stigma.\" — whereupon Pinchas said to him: \"Our teacher, we did as you commanded us.\" (Ibid. 15-16) \"And Moses said to them: Have you let all the females live? These are the women who were (consigned as harlots) against the children of Israel by the word of Bilam.\" What was that word? He said to them (the Midianites): Even if you bring all the hordes in the world against them, you will not defeat them. Are you more numerous than the Egyptians, of whom it is written (Shemot 14:7) \"And he took six hundred of his picked chariots, etc.\"? But come, I will counsel you as to what to do. The G-d of these detests lewdness. Consign your wives and daughters to them and steep them in lust and their G-d will war against them. For this is the rule: As long as Israel does His will, He wars for them, as it is written (Shemot 14:14) \"the L-rd will war for you.\" And when they do not do His will, He wars against them, viz. (Isaiah 63:10) \"… and He turned into their foe.\" And, what is more, the Merciful One becomes cruel to them, viz. (Eichah 2:5) \"The L-rd has become like a foe; He has swallowed up Israel.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 31:17) \"And every woman knowing a man for carnal relations, kill\": Is Scripture speaking of a woman who is fit for intercourse or of one who has actually had intercourse? (Ibid. 31:18) \"And all the little ones among the women who did not know carnal relations, keep alive for yourselves\" makes it clear that the criterion is being fit for intercourse. (31:7) \"kill\": Why is this (second \"kill\") mentioned? (i.e., Why is the first \"kill\" not sufficient to include \"and every woman knowing a man\"?) (It is written) to conclude the subject (i.e., to be included with the preceding part of the verse.) For otherwise, I would not know whether (the reading is to kill the women together) \"with every male among the little ones\" or to keep (them) alive \"with all the little ones among the women.\" It (the second \"kill\") is, therefore, written (to conclude the subject of the first verse.) \"And all the little ones among the women who did not know carnal relations, keep alive for yourselves\": From here R. Shimon b. Yochai ruled. A proselytess who was converted at less than three years and one day is fit for (marriage to) the priesthood.",
            " (Bamidbar 31:19) \"And you, abide outside the camp seven days\": What is the intent of this? From (Bamidbar 19:14) \"A man if he die in a tent, all that enter the tent (while the body is still in it) … shall be unclean seven days,\" I would think, even straw and twigs, etc. (see Chukath #126). \"you and your captives\": Just as you are children of the covenant (and require sprinkling with the waters of the red heifer), so, your captives (i.e., Those girls less than three year and one day of age, who were proselytized and became unclean, require sprinkling.)",
            " (Bamidbar 31:20) \"and every garment and every vessel of skin\": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 11:32) \"or skin or sack,\" I know only of sack. Whence do I derive (the same for) every work of goats? (From the above.) Would you say that? It follows a fortiori! (i.e., why do we need a verse?), viz.: If in dead-body tumah (our instance) the more stringent variety, every work of goats is likened to sack, then in the instance of sheretz (creeping thing) tumah, (that of Vayikra), the less stringent variety, how much more so should every work of goats be likened to sack! — Would you say that? Do we derive the less stringent from the more stringent to be more stringent with it? Rather, why is \"garment\" mentioned in respect to dead body tumah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If in sheretz, the less stringent variety, garment was likened to sack, how much more so (should this obtain) in dead-body tumah! Why, then, is \"garment\" mentioned in dead-body tumah? It is \"extra\" for the purpose of formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: \"Garment\" is written here and \"garment\" is written elsewhere (Vayikra). Just as here, every work of goats is likened to sack, so, there. And just as there, (the articles must be) spun and woven, (sack being spun and woven), so, there, spun and woven. To include the band, the belt, and the saddle-band of an ass, which are spun and woven. To exclude cords or ropes, which are not spun and woven.",
            " (Bamidbar 31:21) \"And Elazar the Cohein said to the men of the host who came to the war: This is the statute of the Torah which the L-rd commanded Moses\": It had been forgotten by Moses, our teacher. Because he had succumbed to anger, he succumbed to forgetfulness. R. Elazar says: In three places he succumbed to anger and he succumbed to error: (Vayikra 10:16-17) \"and he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, saying: Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place?\" (Bamidbar 20:10) \"And he said to them: Listen, now, you fractious ones! Shall we bring forth water for you from this rock!\" — followed by (11) \"And Moses lifted his hand and smote the rock with his staff twice.\" Here, too, (Ibid. 31:14) \"And Moses was wroth with the commanders of the host, the officers of the thousands and the officers of the hundreds, who came from the host of battle\" — followed by \"And Elazar the Cohein said to the men of the host who came to the war, etc.\" Moses, our teacher, because he had succumbed to anger, succumbed to forgetfulness. Others say: Moses authorized Elazar the Cohein to speak, so that when he died they would not say to Elazar: \"In your teacher's lifetime you did not speak. Why are you speaking now?\" \"which the L-rd commanded Moses\": He said the thing in the name of its sayer. And thus is it written (Esther 2:22) \"And Esther said to the king in the name of Mordecai.\""
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 31:22) \"Only the gold and the silver\": You say (finished) vessels. But perhaps (the verse is speaking of) golmim (unfinished, undifferentiated metal forms)? It follows (otherwise), viz.: The dead of Israel cause uncleanliness, and the slain of Midian cause uncleanliness. Just as with the dead of Israel (finished) vessels contract uncleanliness, and not golmim, so, with the slain of Midian. R. Yossi Haglili says; (The verse speaks of finished) vessels. You say vessels, but perhaps golmim? It is, therefore, written \"Only,\" to distinguish (between the two.)",
            " (Bamidbar 31:23) \"Every thing that comes into the fire shall you pass through the fire\": Knives, spits, and grills are whitened in fire. Pots, stew-pots, and kettles and boilers are to be boiled against absorption of idolatrous elements. \"And every thing that does not come into the fire\": such as spears, cups and flasks, are rinsed and immersed. And whence is (the need for) immersion (derived)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If what does not require sprinkling (with the waters of the red heifer) requires immersion, how much more so that which requires sprinkling!",
            " (Bamidbar 31:24) \"And you shall wash your garments on the seventh day and you shall be clean\": What is the intent of this? Since we are speaking of one slain by the sword, Scripture comes to teach us that the sword and one who touches it is tamei for seven days. Whence do we derive (the same for transfer of tumah from) vessels (i.e., appurtenances) to man to vessels (appurtenances)? From \"And you shall wash your garments.\" \"and then you shall come to the camp.\" Just as here, (without washing of garments and sprinkling) he is forbidden to enter the camp (of the Shechinah), so, there (vis-à-vis the red heifer, Vayikra 19:19) he is forbidden to enter the camp; and just as there, until the evening, so, here, until the evening."
        ],
        [
            "(Bamidbar 35:9-10) \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel … When you cross the Jordan, etc.\": What is the intent of this section (on the cities of refuge)? From (Devarim 4:41) \"Then Moses set aside three cities on the east side of the Jordan,\" we know only of these. Whence is it derived that Moses commanded Joshua to set aside cities of refuge (on the other side)? From (Bamidbar 35:11) \"then you shall designate cities for yourselves.\" Scripture speaks of (the time) after inheritance and settlement. — But perhaps, upon their entry to the land? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12:29) \"When the L-rd your G-d has cut down the nations, etc.\" Scripture speaks of (the time after inheritance and settlement). (Bamidbar 35:10) \"When you cross the Jordan to the land of Canaan\": From here R. Yonathan derived: The Jordan is not part of the land of Canaan. R. Shimon b. Yochai says (Ibid. 26:3) \"at the Jordan. Jericho\": Just as Jericho is part of Canaan, so is Jordan. (Ibid. 35:11) \"Then you shall call out cities (arim) for yourselves.\" \"Calling out\" connotes \"designation.\" \"cities\": I might think, large cities; it is, therefore, written \"arim\" (connoting small cities). If so, I might think villages. It is, therefore, written \"arim.\" How was this implemented in effect? They were of such size as to have markets and a food store. \"And there shall flee there a slayer\": I might think, any slayer. It is, therefore, written \"a slayer, one who smites a soul unwittingly.\" If \"one who smites a soul,\" I would think, even one who wounds his father and mother (unwittingly, viz. Shemot 21:15). It is, therefore, written \"a slayer, one who smites a soul,\" Scripture hereby excluding from exile one who (unwittingly) wounds his father and mother."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 35:12) \"And the cities shall be for you as a refuge from the avenger. And the slayer shall not die until he stand before the congregation for judgment.\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 27) \"And if the avenger kill the slayer (outside the city of refuge), he has no blood\" (on his hands), I might think (he may kill him even) immediately. It is, therefore, written \"And the slayer shall not die (at the hands of the avenger) until he stand before the congregation for judgment\" (and is pronounced an exile.)",
            " (Bamidbar 35:13) \"And the cities which you shall provide — six cities of refuge shall there be for you.\": together with the first (three designated by Moses across the Jordan). You say, together with the first. But perhaps (the meaning is) exclusive of the first? (Ibid. 14) \"The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan, and the three cities shall you provide in the land of Canaan\" indicates \"together with the first.\" And they are (Devarim 4:43) \"Betzer in the desert in the land of the plain for (the tribes of) Reuven; Ramoth in Gilead for Gad; and Golan in Bashan for Menasheh. And, corresponding to them, three in the land of Canaan, viz. (Joshua 20:7) \"And they set aside Kedesh in the Galil in the hill (country) of Naftali, and Shechem in the hill of Ephraim, and Kiryath Arba, which is Chevron, in the hill of Yehudah.\" We find, then, the two and a half tribes across the Jordan corresponding (in this respect) to the nine and a half tribes in the land of Canaan, most of the spillers of blood residing in Gilead. As it is written (Hoshea 6:8) \"Gilead, the city of the workers of wrong, steeped in blood.\" (Bamidbar 35:13) \"cities of refuge shall there be for you\": What is the intent of this? I derive that they provide refuge only for those (who killed) in the land. Whence do I derive (the same for those) outside the land? From \"shall there be for you\" (— in any event). (Ibid. 15) \"for the children of Israel\": This tells me (that they provide refuge only) for (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes and sojourners? From (Ibid.) \"and for the proselyte and the sojourner in their midst.\" But perhaps (the meaning is that) just as a sojourning proselyte is exiled for (unwittingly killing) another, so, he is exiled for (unwittingly killing) an Israelite, and an Israelite is exiled for (unwittingly killing) him? — It is, therefore, written \"for you.\" How so? If an Israelite killed him, he is exempt. If he killed an Israelite, he is killed. \"shall these six cities be for refuge\": What is the intent of this? From (14) \"The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan,\" I might think that the first that is set aside provides refuge (immediately). It is, therefore, written \"shall these six cities be for refuge,\" Scripture hereby apprising us that one (city) does not afford refuge until all have been set aside.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:16) \"And if with an iron implement he kill him (intentionally) and he die, he is a murderer.\": What is the intent of this? From (17) \"And if with a hand-stone … (18) Or if with a wooden implement, etc.\", I might think that he is liable only if he killed him with one of these. Whence would I derive (the same for) iron? It is, therefore, written \"And if with an iron implement he kill him, he is a murderer.\" — But (even) without this I can derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is liable for killing him with stone or wood, how much more so with iron! — But if so, I would say: Just as a stone must fill the hand (thus \"hand-stone\"), so, iron. It is, therefore, written with an implement of iron, (of any size). It is revealed before the Holy One Blessed be He that iron of any size can kill, wherefore \"hand\" is not written (in that connection) — even a needle or a pin sufficing. This tells me only of his killing him with iron. Whence do I derive the same for his throwing at him metal balls or lumps? From (16) \"He is a murderer; die shall die the murderer\" — in any event. (17) \"And if with a hand-stone, whereby he can die, he strike him and he die, he is a murderer. Die shall die the murderer.\": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:18) \"And if men quarrel and a man strike his neighbor, etc.\" I might think (that this obtains) whether he strikes him with something which is or which is not lethal. It is, therefore, written \"And if with a hand-stone (i.e., one which fills the hand), whereby he can die, he strike him.\" Scripture hereby apprises us that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal. I might think, even (if he strike him) on a (body) site (a blow to) which is not mortal. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:11) \"And if a man hate his neighbor … and he strike him mortally\" — whereby we are apprised that he is not liable unless he strikes him with something which is potentially lethal and on a (body) site, injury to which may result in his death. This (\"And if with a hand-stone\") tells me that he is liable only if he kills him with a stone. Whence do I derive (the same for) his rolling rocks or pillars over him? From (17) \"he is a murderer — die shall die the murderer\" — in any event.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:18) \"Or if with a wooden hand-implement, whereby he can die, he strike him, and he die, he is a murderer.\" What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:20) \"And if a man strike his (Canaanite) man-servant or maid-servant with a rod, and he die under his hand, vengeance (by the sword) shall be taken,\" I might think, whether or not it is of killing potential. It is, therefore, written \"Or if with a wooden hand-implement, whereby he can die, he strike him, etc.\" — only if it is of killing potential. I might think, even on a (body) site injury to which does not result in death. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 19:11) \"And if a man hate his neighbor and lie in wait for him, and he rise up against him and he strike him mortally,\" Scripture hereby apprising us that he is not liable unless he strikes him on a (body) site injury to which may result in death. This (\"Or, if with a wooden implement\") tells me that he is liable only if he struck him with wood. Whence do I derive (the same for) his throwing beams or poles at him? From \"he is a murderer — die shall die the murderer\" — in any event.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:19) \"the avenger, he shall kill the murderer\": The mitzvah is the avenger's. Whence is it derived that if he has no avenger, beth-din designates one for him? From \"The avenger, he shall kill the murderer when he comes upon him\" — in any event.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:20) \"And if in hatred he thrust him\": What is the intent of this? From \"And if with an iron implement,\" \"And if with a hand-stone,\" \"Or if with a wooden hand-implement,\" I might think that he is liable only if he killed him with these. Whence do I derive (the same for) other things? It follows by induction from all three, viz.: Stone is not like wood; wood is not like stone; and both are not like iron. And iron is not like both. What is common to all three is that they are potentially lethal, and if one killed (by them), it is a mitzvah for the avenger to kill him. This tells me only of his killing with these. Whence do I derive that he is likewise liable if he pushed him off the top of a roof and he fell and died? From \"And if in hatred he thrust him\" — in any event. — But perhaps even if he pushed him into water or fire or incited a dog or a snake against him? It follows (that this is not so) by induction from all three, viz.: Stone is not like wood and wood is not like stone and both are not like iron and iron is not like both. What is common to all three is that they are potentially lethal and he killed (by wielding them), in which instance he is liable — to exclude his thrusting him into fire or water or inciting a snare against him, in which instance his (the victim's) judgment is relegated to \"Heaven.\" \"or if he hurl aught at him in prey\": (i.e.,) if he \"hunted\" him with intent to kill.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:21) \"Or if in hatred he strike him with his hand\": What is the intent of this? From \"And if with an iron implement,\" \"And if with a hand-stone,\" \"Or if with a wooden implement,\" I would think that he is liable only with these. Whence do I derive (that he is likewise liable) if he crushed, strangled, kicked, or trampled him? From \"with his hand\" — in any manner. \"The avenger shall kill the murderer\": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (19) \"The avenger, he shall kill the murderer\"? I might think that (this obtains) only with one who has an avenger. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who does not have an avenger? From \"The avenger\" — in any event.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:22) \"And if of a sudden, without hatred, he thrust him\": to exclude (his killing) unwittingly. \"or he cast upon him some instrument, but not in prey\": without \"hunting\" or intent to kill. (22) \"Or with any stone, whereby one can die,\" \"without seeing\": to include (for exile) a blind man and one who throws (a stone) at night. R. Yehudah says: \"without seeing\": to exclude a blind man. \"and he not be his foe\": Issi b. Akiva says: We find his stringency to be his lenity, and his lenity, his stringency, viz.: You cannot make him liable for the death penalty — Perhaps he killed him unwittingly. And you cannot make him liable for exile — Perhaps he killed him wittingly. \"and he not be his foe\" (juxtaposed with [24] \"Then the congregation shall judge\"): to exclude haters from sitting in judgment. This tells me of haters. Whence do we derive the same for kin? From (24) \"between the slayer and the avenger\" (with no other \"relationship\" intervening). Whence do I derive the same for witnesses? It follows, viz.: The Torah states: Kill through (the agency of) judges, kill through witnesses. Just as judges who are (their) haters or kin are unfit (to judge in their case), so, witnesses (who are haters or kin). Furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If judges — who do not decide (the facts of the case) — haters and kin are unfit to serve (as judges), then witnesses — who decide (the facts of the case) — how much more so are haters and kin unfit to serve (as witnesses)! This tells me only of (the instance of a murderer). Whence do I derive (the same for) all other instances of the death penalty? From [the superfluous] (Ibid.) \"according to these judgments.\" This tells me only of Israelites. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? From (Vayikra 24:22) \"for proselytes and native-born (Israelites) alike.\" This tells me only of capital cases. Whence do I derive (the same for) monetary cases? From (Ibid.) \"One (standard of) judgment shall there be for you,\" — But perhaps just as capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three, so, monetary cases? It is, therefore, written (here) \"according to these (capital) judgments.\" These are (adjudicated) by twenty-three, and not monetary judgments, of which it is written (Shemot 22:8) \"Until elohim (counting three judges) shall come the dispute of both.\" And whence is it derived that capital cases (are adjudicated) by twenty-three? From (Bamidbar 35:24) \"And the congregation (ten) shall judge\" (25) And the congregation (ten) shall rescue\" — twenty all together. And whence is it derived that three are added? From (Shemot 23:2) \"Do not be after the many to do evil,\" I understand that I should be with them to do good. If so, what is the intent of (Ibid.) \"After the many (i.e., the majority to incline\" (judgment)? Let your judgment for good (i.e., acquittal) not be like your judgment for evil (i.e., incrimination). I still would not know how many, (but the Torah states: Kill by witnesses; kill by the inclination of the judges. Just as witnesses are two, so, the inclination of the judges (i.e., acquittal, is with a majority of one, and incrimination by a majority of two); and since the verdict of beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, three most be added to them (the twenty). The expounders of metaphor stated: The three \"eduyoth\" (\"congregants\") written in this section (one in [24] and two in [27]) signal that capital cases are adjudicated by thirty.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:25) \"And the congregation shall return him\": From here you learn that those who kill, either unwittingly or wittingly, repair to the cities of refuge, and beth-din send and bring them from there. One who is found liable for the death penalty is killed. One who is not found liable is let go. One who is found liable for exile is returned to his place, as it is written \"and the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge.\" \"and he shall dwell there until the death of the high-priest\": R. Meir says: A murderer shortens a man's days, and the high-priest lengthens a man's days. It is not fitting that the \"shortener\" should stand before the \"lengthener.\" Rebbi says: A murderer defiles the land and removes the Shechinah, and the high-priest causes the Shechinah to repose on the land. It is not fitting that he who defiles the land should stand before him who causes the Shechinah to repose upon the land.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:26) \"And if the murderer go beyond the border of the city of refuge … (27) the avenger may slay the murderer\": R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If under the measure of punishment, the lesser (of the two measures), one who steps one step (beyond the permitted limits) is liable for his soul, then under the measure of reward, the greater, how much more so (is his soul ennobled by an \"extra step\" for a mitzvah)! (37) \"And the avenger find him\": any man (i.e., not only the literal \"blood-avenger,\" his kin). (38) \"For in the city of his refuge shall he dwell\": whence it is derived: If one killed in that city (to which he had been exiled), he is exiled from one neighborhood (in that city) to another. And a Levite (who lives in a city of refuge) is exiled from that city to another. \"and after the death of the high-priest, the slayer shall return to the land of his holding\": but not to his (previous high) position. These are the words of R Yehudah. R. Meir says: even to his position."
        ],
        [
            " (Bamidbar 35:29) \"And these shall be for you a statute of judgment\": to obtain throughout the generations\": in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it. (30) \"Whoever would kill a soul, by the testimony of witnesses shall he kill the slayer\": What is the intent of this? From (19) \"The avenger, he shall kill him,\" I might think that he may kill him in beth-din without witnesses. It is, therefore, written \"Whoever would kill a soul, by the testimony of witnesses, etc.\" He kills him only in beth-din and by witnesses. \"and one witness shall not testify against a soul to have him put to death\": (but) he can testify towards acquittal. And one witness can testify towards (imposing) an oath. \"and one witness\": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever \"witness\" is written, two are understood, unless \"one\" is specified. (31) \"And you shall not take ransom for the soul of a murderer\": What is the intent of this? From (Shemot 21:30) \"When ransom is set for him\" (one whose ox killed a man), I might think that just as \"redemption\" is given for those subject to death at the hands of Heaven, so, is it given for those liable to death by man (i.e., beth-din). It is, therefore, written \"And you shall not take ransom.\" R. Yoshiyah says: If one were taken out to be executed and he injured others, he is liable. If others injured him, they are not liable for (injuring) his person, (for he is considered \"dead\"), but they are liable for (damage to) his property. Whence is this derived? From \"And you shall not take ransom,\" (indicating that he is regarded as \"dead.\") — But perhaps this obtains even if his verdict has not yet been consummated? It is, therefore, written \"who is liable to die.\" Until his verdict has been consummated, he (i.e., one who injures him) is liable. Once his verdict has been consummated, he is not liable. R. Yonathan says: If one were being taken out to be executed, and another came forward and killed him, he is not liable. Even if his verdict has not yet been consummated? It is, therefore, written \"until he is liable to die.\" Until his verdict has been consummated, he (i.e., one who kills him) is liable. Once his verdict has been consummated, he is not liable.",
            " (Bamidbar 35:32) \"And you shall not take ransom for one who fled to the city of his refuge, etc.\": If one killed unwittingly, I might think that if he gave money (i.e., \"ransom\"), he would not be exiled. It is, therefore, written \"And you shall not take ransom for one who has fled, etc.\"",
            " (Bamidbar 35:33) \"Velo tachanifu the land\": This is an exhortation against flatterers (\"chanafim\"). Variantly: Do not cause the land to \"flatter\" you (i.e., not to produce fruit). \"ki hadam hu yachanif eth ha'aretz\": Rabbi Yoshiyah interpreted this acronymically, viz.: \"ki hadam hu yachon af ba'aretz\" (\"for the blood will repose wrath upon the land.\" \"and the land will not have atonement.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 21:4) \"and they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the river-bed,\" I might think that if its neck were broken and afterwards the murderer were found, it would effect atonement. It is, therefore, written \"and the land will not have atonement.\" We are hereby taught that the spilling of blood defiles the land and removes the Shechinah. And because of the spilling of blood the Temple was destroyed.",
            " Once, the Cohanim of equal station were running up the ramp (to perform the sacrifice), when one of them caught up with the other in his four ells, took his knife, and thrust it into his heart. R. Tzaddok ascended the steps of the Temple hall and said: It is written (Devarim 21:1) \"If there be found a slain one on the earth, etc.\" Come and let us measure for whom it is incumbent to bring the heifer (of the broken neck) — the Temple or the azarah (the Temple court) — whereupon all of the people burst into tears. After that the father of the young Cohein came and said to them: \"My brothers, let him be your atonement. My son is still palpitating and the (sacrificial) knife has not become unclean\" — whereby we are taught that the defilement of knives was of more moment to them than the spilling of blood. And thus is it written (II Kings 21:16) \"And Menasheh also shed very much innocent blood until it filled Jerusalem from mouth to mouth.\"",
            "        (Bamidbar 35:34) \"in whose midst I dwell\": Beloved are Israel, for even when they are tamei the Shechinah reposes among them — (Vayikra 16:16) \"who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanliness,\" and (Ibid. 15:31) \"… when they defile My sanctuary which is in their midst,\" and (Bamidbar 5:3) \"and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell.\" (Ibid. 35:34) \"for I the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.\" R. Nathan says: Beloved are Israel, for wherever they are exiled the Shechinah is with them. They were exiled to Egypt — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (I Samuel 2:27) \"Did I not reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt (enslaved to) the house of Pharaoh?\" They were exiled to Bavel — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 43:14) \"Because of you I was sent to Bavel.\" They were sent to Eilam — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Jeremiah 49:38) \"I placed My throne in Eilam, and banished from there king and officers.\" They were exiled to Edom — the Shechinah was with them, viz. (Isaiah 63:1) \"Who is  This, who comes from Edom, with sullied vestments, from Batzrah?\" And when they return, the Shechinah will be with them, viz. (Devarim 30:3) \"Then the L-rd your G-d will return with your captivity and He will have mercy upon you.\" It is not written \"and He will return to you,\" but \"and He will return with you!\" And it is written (Song of Songs 4:8) \"With Me from the Levanon, My bride — with Me from the Levanon shall you come. You will look from the top of Amanah, from the top of Senir and Chermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards.\"  Rebbi says: An analogy: A king says to his servant: Why do you search for me? I am with my son. Whenever you need me, I am with my son. \"For I, the L-rd dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.\""
        ]
    ],
    "versions": [
        [
            "Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
            "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ספרי במדבר",
    "categories": [
        "Midrash",
        "Halakhah"
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Paragraph",
        "Paragraph"
    ]
}