Sifrei Bamidbar Reader

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!