Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

(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, then, 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."